popular reactions to injustice in the book of job

Adam Cherlin Book of Job Seminar

August 28, 2010

1

Bystander Indifference to Instances of Injustice and the Book of Job

The book of Job presents a prototypical account of the psychological dynamics of

injustice. Its primary figures, Job and God, loom large in the narrative, and as such it is easy to

focus on the account of Job’s internal struggle as a victim. However, the bulk of the text

addresses the perspective of witnesses’ reactions to injustice through the arguments of Job’s

three friends: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In the course of the text all three present arguments

that Job’s protestations of innocence are misguided, and that he must be guilty of some offense

against God; as Eliphaz rhetorically puts it, “Can an innocent man be punished?”1 This paper

will consider why otherwise empathetic and moral individuals, such as Eliphaz, often react with

denial or indifference when confronted with instances of injustice through a close reading of the

Book of Job and by reference to modern theories of psychology and social philosophy. The

perspectives presented will then be applied to, and analyzed within the context of police brutality

in contemporary Chicago.

I. Background

A. Textual Analysis of the Book of Job

As the protagonist of his eponymous text, Job and his struggle with, or perhaps against,

God can eclipse secondary characters. While Job himself presents a window into the mind of the

victim, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar present us with the psychology of the bystander. This often-

overlooked third perspective is of supreme importance both practically and theoretically. When

presented with a literary or historical account of grave injustice and criminality, the reader is

1 STEPHEN MITCHELL, THE BOOK OF JOB 17 (HarperPerennial 1992) (1979)


August 28, 2010

2

drawn towards a binary interpretation of “victim and perpetrator.” In literature it is often the

victim that is empowered to correct the wrongs enacted against him. This is arguably the case in

our text, as Job’s stubborn refusal to admit guilt seems to be the source of his ultimate

redemption. The motivation behind this tendency of interpretation and narrative is not difficult to

understand. There is a poetic justice and dramatic power in the reversal of fortunes, the weak

become powerful, the powerful weak, and all is well. Unfortunately, this binary model of

interpretation often does not play out in reality. In the vast majority of cases the victims of

injustice begin and remain powerless throughout their ordeals. As unsatisfying as it is, injustice

is usually correctable exclusively through the intervention of a third-party.

The three friends come to Job, seemingly to comfort him, but instead contradict his

claims of innocence with accusations. They are introduced in our narrative with language that

stresses their profound empathy and concern for Job’s well being. “When these friends heard of

all the calamities that had come upon him, each of them left his own country to mourn with Job

and comfort him […] They then sat with him for seven days and seven nights. And no one said a

word, for they saw how great his suffering was.”2 It is made clear the three friends’ decision to

speak with Job was motivated, at least initially, by simple concern and love. Furthermore, they

demonstrate profound sensitivity to Job’s ordeal, in simply sitting with him, and, at first,

refraining from commenting. It is notable in this regard that the text creates a causal link between

the friends’ silence, and the severity of Job’s suffering. We are left with the impression that

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar came to Job with the assumption that he was in fact deserving of his

suffering, but held their tongues temporarily, until it was appropriate to confront him.

2 Id. at 9.


August 28, 2010

3

There is a seeming contradiction, however, in the three friends’ presentation as being

motivated by sympathy and their utter refusal to take Job’s side in the matter. In normal human

interactions there is a tendency to take the side of one’s compatriots, even against facts that

imply otherwise. Why then, do Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar reject Job’s account with such ease?

There is no implication in the text that they lacked genuine affection for Job, and there is no

mention of ulterior motivations for their visit anywhere in the text. Similarly, there is no

indication that the three friends are especially unkind or indifferent, on the contrary, they are

consistently presented as bastions of virtue and ethical behavior. The text thus presents the

puzzling reality of observers of injustice who, despite empathy for the victim and sound ethical

standards, fail to correctly assess a given situation.

B. Police Torture and Coercion in Contemporary Chicago

The problem of third-parties’ indifference to manifest injustice is all too familiar. I first

became aware of the problem when confronted with the epidemic of torture and the coercion of

confessions perpetrated by the Chicago Police Department in my hometown, Chicago.3 I had

become aware of the problem in the late 1990s through personal interactions with both police

officers, and impoverished residents of the city’s Southside, who were often the victims of police

brutality. As a somewhat overly optimistic teenager, I began recounting what I had learned not

only to my peers, but also to members of my parent’s synagogue, and nearly anyone who would

listen to me. I was astounded to learn that many of the adults I spoke to at the time were aware of

3 See the reporting of John Conroy for the Chicago Reader for an extensive account of police torture in Chicago. Archive of Columns by John Conroy, http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/police-torture-in-chicago-jon-burge-scandal-articles-by-john-conroy/Content?oid=1210030 (last visited August 28, 2010).


August 28, 2010

4

the problem, and noted that it had been a well known issues since at least the 1970s. At the time,

I could not grasp how it was possible for such horrific crimes to be regularly committed in my

own community without overwhelming public response. My confusion with the situation was

compounded by the fact that such profound apathy and disregard was to be found, not only with

otherwise indifferent individuals, but also from the very people within my community who

inculcated my peers and I with activist ideals. How could it be that the very same teacher who

spoke passionately about the greatness of individuals like Medgar Evers, who risked their lives

for the advancement of civil rights, reacted so sanguinely to continued racial and economic

motivated oppression occurring on a weekly if not daily basis in their own backyard. Perhaps

even more surprising, I encountered rationalization for this practice among members of the very

communities assailed by the Chicago Police. Often, law-abiding residents of Chicago’s more

dangerous neighborhoods would justify the police’s abuses, claiming that coercive measures

were necessary due to the severity of criminality in their community.

The situation was publicly addressed in 2002, with the publication of Cornelia

Grumman’s Pulitzer winning editorial, “No More Excuses. Go to the Tape.”4 In that article

Grumman poignantly presents numerous instances of individuals sentenced to death because of

coerced confessions, who were later exonerated by DNA evidence. Her editorial, coupled with

the efforts of then State Senator Obama soon paved the way for the passage of a bill in the

Illinois legislature that required the videotaping of all police interrogations.

While this effort fell short of addressing the issue completely, it stands out as the only

recent public effort to prevent police torture in Chicago. Impressed with the success of Grumman

and Senator Obama’s efforts, I had expected to see momentum build, that would eventually lead

4 Cornelia Grumman, No More Excuses. Go to the Tape, Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2002.


August 28, 2010

5

to the complete elimination of police torture in Chicago, as well as the punishment of those

responsible. I soon was relieved of this notion.

By random circumstance, my father’s consulting firm was hired to install the cameras and

recording equipment for all of Chicago’s precincts, and he was individually tasked with the

project. Knowing that I was deeply troubled by this problem, he recounted conversations that had

occurred with members of the Chicago Police establishment on the project. He frequently

encountered detectives who explicitly complained that the cameras would prevent them from

“doing their job” because they would prevent the use of torture. One detective bragged that he

would hold suspects in interrogation for hours on end while denying access to a restroom. This

would cause severe physical discomfort, and often ended with suspects defecating in their

clothing, and be forced to sit like this for long stretches of time. Another detective explicitly told

my father that he would routinely pick up random people off the street in Chicago’s poorer areas,

and attempt to coerce confessions for crimes he was assigned to investigate. The justification he

gave for this practice was that they “probably did something else anyway.” Similar stories were

recounted to me on a weekly basis for the duration of the cameras installation. It was apparent

that the Chicago Police Department was so unconcerned by the prospect of public sentiment

turning against them, that bragging about their horrific practices to my father, who was tasked

with preventing these very practices, was perceived as utterly unthreatening.

This situation confounded me for a number of years. Police torture in Chicago was an

injustice that was known to the public for decades, was recently exposed in the mass media, and

addressed by legislative action. Nonetheless, I encountered indifference and apathy far more

often than genuine concern. The matter would have been easy to understand if apathetic

reactions were limited to those who exhibited moral failings, such as general indifference to the


August 28, 2010

6

plight of the low-income African-American community in the city. However, more often than

not I encountered the same apathy and indifference among individual who were otherwise

empathetic and moral. Thus, I realized that in order to address this issue in particular, and similar

instances of bystander indifference, some greater understanding of the human psyche was

necessary. The behavior of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in the Book of Job opens an intriguing

interpretive window into this problem.

II. Theoretical Approaches

In the following section we will consider four distinct, but interrelated theoretical

approaches to the problem of indifference and the denial of manifest injustice. The first two

approaches considered are rooted in psychology generally, and dissonance theory in particular,

while the final two present philosophical interpretations. Each approach will be explicated, and

critiqued. They will additionally be considered in relation to the Eliphaz, Blidad, and Zophar’s

behavior in the Book of Job.

A. Belief in a Just World

The first perspective that will be explored on the problem of witness denial of injustice is

the tendency of individuals to distort their perception of realty in order to conform with

preexisting biases. While this concept is far from novel, as bias is encountered in nearly all

human interactions, and can stem from a myriad of sources, including: race, class, and ideology,5

the precise manner and extent of bias is far from clear.

5 See Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman & Donald Braman, Who’s Eyes are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive IllIberalism, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 837 (2009).


August 28, 2010

7

In the 2006 article, “When Effort is Threatening: The Influence of the Belief in a Just

World on Americans’ Attitudes Toward Antipoverty Policy,”6 a study is presented which

purports to demonstrate how the belief that “people get what they deserve and deserve what they

get”7 affects individuals’ opinions on the use of public funds to alleviate poverty. The article

makes the general claim that when presented with data that contradict deeply held ideological

biases, individuals will alter their assessments of a given situation in order to preserve their belief

structure. If an individual believes that the world is generally fair, a certain degree of cognitive

dissonance will be experienced when confronted with instances of underserved suffering. The

claim is made that the trauma of this contradiction will cause this individual to experience

decreased sympathy, and even indifference towards the victims of injustice as a coping

mechanism. We are thus left with the astounding possibility that reactions of indifference to

instances of injustice may arise, not out of apathy towards ideals of justice, but out of its

centrality in a person’s moral framework. In other words, the reality of unjust suffering is so

upsetting to some, as to require the denial of its very existence.

In order to prove its claim, the study surveyed the beliefs of 1,570 individuals, utilizing

rigorous statistical controls. An established methodology for measuring belief in a just world,

known as the “General Belief in a Just World Scale” was utilized to assess the degree to which

the survey’s participants believed that the world is just.8 Participants were presented with the

story of a single mother, known as “Lisa,” who experiences economic hardship, and are asked to

assess if she was deserving of government assistance. Four aspects of the single mother vignette

6 Lauren D. Appelbaum, Mary Clare Lennon & J. Lawrence Aber, When Effort is Threatening: The Influence of the Belief in a Just World on Americans’ Attitudes Toward Antipoverty Policy, 27 Political Psychology 387 (2006). 7 Id. at 390. 8 Id. at 394.


August 28, 2010

8

were altered between the survey’s participants in order to create varying degree’s of

responsibility for her own fate, which included, “Lisa's working status (i.e., whether she is

working vs. on welfare or her status is not indicated); whether Lisa attends school to improve her

job skills; whether she is looking for a job (or a better job if she is employed); and whether she

sometimes skips a meal so that her family can eat.”9 The results of the survey show that belief in

a just world tends to correlate with the assessment that the vignette’s single mother is less

deserving of assistance. Furthermore, individuals were less likely to conclude she was deserving

of assistance when the four variable factors mentioned above indicated increased effort on her

part to alleviate her own situation.

A remarkably similar mental process to that described above is presented in the Book of

Job. In his first speech Bildad asserts belief in a just world. “Would Shaddai pervert justice?”10

“God would not reject the innocent.”11 He concludes based on this that Job must be at fault in

some way. In response Job simply denies the accusation and clearly states that God does not, in

fact, deal justly with the world. Quite the opposite, “The good and the guilty He destroys

alike.”12 This same conversation plays out in numerous instances in the course of the text. It is

notable that in all such instances there is a distinct lack of actual debate that occurs. Job and his

friends repeatedly assert contradictory positions on the justness of God’s treatment of the world,

without any real change in the positions of either party. We are thus left with an interpretive

dilemma as to what the Book of Job’s author meant to communicate by the repeated rehearsal of

this difference of opinion. With the perspective of “When Effort is Threatening,” an interpretive

9 Id. at 395. 10 RAYMOND P. SCHEINDLIN, THE BOOK OF JOB 70 (Norton 1999) (1997). 11 Id. at 71. 12 Id. at 73.


August 28, 2010

9

approach can be formulated. The possibility that God acts capriciously towards his creation is so

terrifying to the three friends, as to blind them from Job’s innocence.13 The mental trauma they

would suffer as a result of siding with Job is so severe, as to prevent any rational argument from

reaching them, and on the contrary, the more evidence of the occurrence of injustice that is

presented, the greater their resistance to the idea. Just as those surveyed in the above study

showed less empathy for “Lisa” the more she made an effort to reach economic stability, Job’s

friends ‘ position is only hardened by Job’s counter-arguments.

B. System Justification Theory

A correlating approach to why witnesses’ will uncharacteristically react with a lack of

empathy when presented with injustice is “System Justification Theory.” John Jost and Mahzerin

Banaji developed this theory in 1994. Its most basic assumption “is that people tend to provide

cognitive and ideological support for the existing social system. Among other things, this means

that they should often view systems and authorities as beyond reproach and inequality among

groups and individuals as legitimate and even necessary”14 This theory is novel in that in starkly

contradicts preexisting assumptions on human behavior based on the “Rational Choice Model.”15

According to Rational Choice Theory, individuals will tend to support public policies that

tangibly benefit them directly, or groups they closely identify with. System Justification Theory

13 See Id. at 156. (“[God] said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am very angry at you and your two friends, for you have not spoken rightly about me as did my servant Job,” indicating the three friends’ claims were ultimate incorrect). 14 John T. Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System: Evidence of Enhanced System Justification Among the Disadvantaged, 33 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 13, 14 (2003). 15 See Gary Blasi & John T.Jost, System Justification Theory and Research: Implications for Law, Legal Advocacy, and Social Justice, 91 Cal. Law. Rev. 1119, at 1120-1121 (2006).


August 28, 2010

10

asserts that rational choice is often overridden by a desire to support the status quo, even at one’s

own expense.

The most widely supported rationale as to why there exists such a tendency is rooted in

dissonance theory. Dissonance theory claims “people are motivated to resolve inconstancies

among their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and to provide justifications or rationalizations for

their actions and experiences.”16 The study considered above in regards to belief in a just world

is a clear example of dissonance theory in action. Rather than live with the dissonance between

their belief that the world is just, and manifest injustice, the survey’s participants altered their

perception of “Lisa’s” situation, to conform to their preexisting beliefs. System Justification

Theory takes this as its basis, but extends the dynamic to a wider context. For example,

“disadvantaged groups would experience psychological discomfort because their own

disadvantage implies that, either consciously, or unconsciously, they would feel “complicit” in

perpetuating the status quo.”17As a result, members of such groups may feel compelled to deny

the unjust treatment of members of their own group when witnessing such events. Because this

dissonance does not exist for members of advantaged social groups, System Justification Theory

predicts, counter-intuitively, that there will be an increased stake in the status quo for those most

disadvantaged by it.

It is important to note, that System Justification Theory does not claim to be predictive of

behavior in all scenarios, but rather asserts one internal dynamic among many. People do act

rationally, demonstrate in-group favoritism, and act in their self-interest, however, these

motivations may fail to actualize when confronted with the contradictory impulse to resolve

16 Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System at 15. 17 Id. at 16.


August 28, 2010

11

cognitive dissonance. If such an impulse does exist, however, it is a factor that must be taken into

account in a variety of social context for an accurate analysis of a given situation.

Because the claims of System Justification Theory run counter not only to much of our

experience, but to simple common sense, it is important to present the extensive empirical data

for the theory. In their aforementioned article Jost and Banaji present a comprehensive array of

supporting evidence.18 Because a full presentation and analysis of these studies is beyond the

scope of this paper, they will be considered generally. All the studies brought in support of Jost

and Banaji’s theory involved surveys of disadvantaged groups on a range of issues that addressed

relative trust in the government, and satisfaction with the status quo. Various disadvantaged

subgroups were surveyed individually and collectively, considering factors such as race,

sexuality, personal status, and income. It has been constantly demonstrated that members

relatively disadvantaged groups will show greater deferral to authority than relatively advantaged

groups. In one such study19 data previously collected from the Latino community was analyzed

with System Justification Theory’s claims in mind. It was demonstrated that, not only were

Latinos more likely than whites to defer to governmental authority, but similarly, poorer Latinos

demonstrated greater deference than wealthier Latinos. In another study,20 increased agreement

was shown with the statement “large differences in income are necessary for America’s

prosperity,” among economically disadvantaged, and racially marginalized groups in the United

States.

18 See also John T. Jost, Mahzarin R. Banaji & Brian A Nosek, A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo, 25 Political Psych. 881 (2001). 19 Jost et al., Social Inequality and the Reduction of ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System at 20-23. 20 Id. at 27-29.


August 28, 2010

12

Despite the impressive array of data accumulated in support of System Justification

Theory, there are problems with a number of the studies methodologies. A number of the studies

presented involved face-to-face polling of disadvantaged social groups by largely middle class,

white college students. The possibility that those surveyed were either unconsciously

intimidated, or attempting to avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes was not accounted for

statically in any of the studies presented. This problem is particularly poignant in studies that

measured agreement with the notion that wealth in America is distributed based on merit. There

is a pernicious and long-existing stereotype that African-Americans and Latinos are “lazy,” and

it is eminently possible that they agreed with the meritocratic myth of the “American Dream,” to

avoid its reinforcement. Furthermore, studies, which demonstrated that low-income whites

showed increased deference to governmental authority, do not necessarily imply that the

resolution of cognitive dissonance was their primary motivation. It is equally possible that

ideological patriotism, and the privileging of economic freedoms above civil freedoms were far

more salient. Despite some questionable methodology, however, Jost and Banaji’s claims are

strongly supported when the studies presented are considered as a whole.

Coming back to the question at hand, System Justification Theory provides another

perspective as to why Job’s friends would choose to contradict him, despite their filial bonds. As

was mentioned above, there is a tendency to assume a degree of favoritism and regard for one’s

friends and compatriots. We additionally noted, that Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar are presented

as displaying genuine affection for Job, but perplexingly accost him with accusations and side

with God against him with no evidence of wrongdoing on Job’s part. System Justification

Theory accounts for this behavior in its contention that individuals can side with authority for the

sake of preserving the status quo, even against group affiliations. Eliphaz goes so far as to claim


August 28, 2010

13

that all individuals must be guilty of some sin, stating, “How can mortal man be guiltless? How

can woman’s brood be innocent?”21 In asserting the inherent culpability of humanity, Eliphaz

maintains the status quo of God’s authority at the expense of all personal and group allegiances.

C. Objective Versus Subjective Violence

Thus far we have considered how internal psychological biases or fears can distort a

bystander’s perception of apparent injustice. In his exposé on the social dynamics of violence,

Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek presents us with a manner in which an individual’s reaction to

injustice can be dulled by the particular manifestation of violence witnessed. He proposes a

conceptual dichotomy between, what he terms “subjective” and “objective” violence. Subjective

violence is “enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined repressive apparatuses,

fanatical crowds.”22 The fact that both the perpetrator and victim of subjective violence, as well

as the very act itself are well defined, allows for the creation of a moving narrative in the mind of

the bystander. In witnessing the victim’s suffering or the perpetrator’s barbarity, the bystander

can experience direct empathy or revulsion by imagining himself subjectively in the train of

events that ensued. Conversely, objective violence is that perpetrated by abstract social forces on

diffuse segments of a given population. Žižek is particularly concerned with the violence

perpetrated on the economically disadvantaged by the free market. He claims that capitalist

socio-ideological violence is largely immune from popular outrage because it “is no longer

21 BOOK OF JOB (Raymond P. Schiendlin, 1999) at 87. 22 SLAVOJ ZIZEK, VIOLENCE (Picador 2008) at 11.


August 28, 2010

14

attributable to concrete individuals, but is purely “objective,” systemic, anonymous.”23 There is

no dramatic narrative available, for example, to those who’s retirement funds were depleted by a

crashing stock market, and as such, outrage is kept to a minimum.

It is important to note, however, that these two categories are by no means exclusive.

There are more instances of hybridized violence, than those that fall clearly in objective or

subjective categories. Consider the occurrence of police brutality in Chicago mentioned above.

Police torture of suspects and coerced confessions can be framed subjectively. There is a

definable victim and perpetrator, and violent act. However, the story does not stop with the

individual police officer and suspect. It is likely if not certain, that the suspect’s low economic

status contributes to his vulnerability to coercion and torture, as the practice was never extended

in Chicago to the middle class. Furthermore, from my own discussions with members of the

Chicago Police, it has been made clear that there is tremendous pressure to rack up large

numbers of arrests. The economic pressure on defectives to produce arrests or be fired, places

sometimes-irresistible incentives for the abuse of power.

Because the framing of violence or injustice as either subjective or objective depends on

the interpretive scope given to a particular matter, we must consider what value the categories

provide in understanding bystander reaction. Because individuals will react more strongly to

subjective violence, it is likely that they will frame a situation as such, if they react to it all.

Because the scope of the witness’ assessment is naturally limited by subjective dramatic

presentation, it is likely that political reactions will be similarly limited. In the case of Chicago

coerced confessions there was, in fact, popular outrage, and political reaction in the form of a bill

presented by then State Senator Obama. The bill in question required the installation of video

23 Id. at 13.


August 28, 2010

15

cameras in all police interrogation rooms, which clearly limited the scope of the solution to the

subjective dramatic encounter between the victim of torture, and individual police torturer, while

ignoring systemic causes for the abuse’s occurrence. Žižek is concerned that this glass ceiling on

witnesses’ reactions to injustice will lead to a veritable “whack-a-mole” approach to public

policy, because the root causes of violence and injustice remain shielded in objective anonymity.

While it would be absurdly anachronistic to interpret the Book of Job as a dialectical-

materialist critique of popular reactions to systemic violence, there are hints of this idea in the

text. In Zophar’s first speech, he notes, “Can you find out God’s depths, or find the outer limits

of Shaddai?”24 Similarly, in God’s own response to Job, there is an overarching emphasis on

God’s utter transcendence above all things within the creation.25 There is a troubling irrationality

to these statements in the flow of the discourse between Job and his comrades. Job levels

particular claims to innocence that are never directly rebutted. The fact of God’s transcendent

status in the text does not invalidate the fact of Job innocence. On the contrary, we know from

the onset of the text that Job’s suffering was not warranted, but was merely the result of a wager

between God and the Satan.26 With this information, how are we to understand God’s own

emphasis on his transcendence in justifying Job’s suffering? It is possible that the author of the

text aimed with this to draw our attention to a dynamic similar to that developed by Žižek. Just

as the public in the modern world feels unable to respond to objective violence with full

emotional and motivational intensity, so too the characters of the Book of Job cannot feel outrage

at Job’s misfortune, if its source is shrouded in God’s mysterious transcendence. Furthermore,

the fact that God uses his transcendent, “objective” status as a subterfuge to distract from his all-

24 BOOK OF JOB (Raymond P. Schiendlin, 1999) at 77. 25 Id. at 143-155. 26 Id. at 55-58.


August 28, 2010

16

too-human motivation for inflicting unjust suffering upon Job, indicates that the author may have

been aware of the dangerous manipulative quality that abstract causes can have on our capacity

to correctly assess a given situation.

D. Spectacle and the Hegemony of Meaning

The final approach we will consider in understanding otherwise empathetic witnesses’

lack of reaction to injustice is developed by Jean Baudrillard in his text “In the Shadow of the

Silent Majorities.”27 Rather than focusing on the witness’ state of mind, or the nature of the

injustice committed, he considers the manner in which the information is distributed to third-

parties in the age of mass media. He sees the self-appointed role of mass media, particularly

televised news, as not simply relaying information to the masses, but attempting injecting that

information with meaning. Events are not reported as dry data, but are framed and coded with

meaning designed to support particular interpretations and moral imperatives. One need only

consider the manner in which the recent British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was

reported. This event was consistently reported in terms of larger social meaning, e.g. corporate

greed, environmentalism, the plight of the “underdog” etc. Baudrillard contends that, despite the

media’s efforts in this regard, the masses consistently resist. As he puts it, “the masses

scandalously resist this imperative of rational communication. They are given meaning: they

want spectacle,”28 “[the masses’] social energy is believed to be released by means of

information and messages […] Quite the contrary. Instead of transforming the mass into energy,

information produces even more mass.”29 Thus, beyond the problems of cognitive dissonance

27 JEAN BAUDRILLARD, IN THE SHADOW OF THE SILENT MAJORITIES (Semiotext(e) 2007) (1978). 28 Id. at 40. 29 Id. at 51.


August 28, 2010

17

and Žižek’s “objective” abstraction, witnesses may be prevented from empathetic and active

responses to injustice, by the very nature of the spectacle of injustice itself.

There is quite a bit to unpack in Baudrillard’s dense French prose. Central to

understanding the media’s failure to impart meaning to the masses is the concept of “spectacle.”

For Baudrillard, spectacle is the one form of information that is readily absorbed by the public. It

is inherently without meaning, simply “bright flashing lights” that entrance and amuse. It is

easiest to understand what he intends by means of an example. Perhaps the most cliché instance

of spectacle is that of the car crash. Onlookers are almost irresistibly drawn to gawk at the

wreckage in front of them. There is no analysis, or consideration at the moment of the spectacle.

The onlooker does not think about the event’s implications for the traffic system, or even the

plight of the victims of the crash, but is simply taken by the raw image before their eyes. On the

contrary, when an individual starts to consider the injuries of the victims of a crash, they cannot

maintain their gawking fascination, but are taken out of the moment, and into a state of internal

reflection and empathy.

With spectacle thus defined, we now must ask why the public is drawn by spectacle to

the exclusion of meaningful interpretation. Baudrillard claims that this reaction is a last-ditch

effort of the masses to resist what he calls “the hegemony of meaning,” Because the masses are

powerless to articulate their own interpretations of events, and are constantly bombarded with the

media-elites’ vision, their only means of resistance is the negation of the media’s imposition of

meaning, not the presentation of positive alternatives.30 Additionally, he sees the injection of

meaning as inherently requiring greater effort on the part of the individual.31 One is naturally

30 Id.at 40-45. 31 Id.at 51-54.


August 28, 2010

18

entranced by the gravitational force of spectacle, while analysis and signification require the

individual to act against his own inertia.

In Baudrillard’s opinion, resistance to the inertia of meaningless spectacle requires the

underlying of a powerful sense of purpose and social destiny. He claims that while such social

mission had existed in Western civilization, it has been eroded to the point of extinction at the

time of his text publication:

This can be seen in the shift in value from history to the humdrum, from the public sphere to the private sphere. Up till the 60s, history leads on the downbeat: the private, the ordinary is only the dark side of the political sphere […] Today there is a reversal of the downbeat and the upbeat: one begins to foresee that ordinary life, men in their banality, could well not be the insignificant side of history.”32

Thus two factors conspire to prevent Baudrillard’s masses from reacting appropriately to

injustice: their attempt to rebel against the “hegemony of meaning” in the public sphere, and the

lack of social force to disturb spectacle’s inertial force.

It should be noted, however, that Baudrillard initially published this text in the days

before the onset of the Internet. One must ask if the masses remain without a voice in the public

sphere, when commentary, news, and publication increasingly come from diffuse individuals

who author blogs, and publish homemade video on video-sharing websites. While it may have

been true in the past that the “Walter Cronkites” of the world dictated meaning to the public, the

Internet has certainly eroded Baudrillard’s “hegemony of meaning.” Still, the diffusion of media

through Internet has not yet reached the point where public meaning is totally democratized, and

as such Baudrillard’s assessment of the mass media’s hegemony remains accurate for the time

being.

32 Id. at 60.


August 28, 2010

19

In a certain respect Baudrillard’s concept of “spectacle” can be seen as a challenge to

Žižek’s concept of subjective violence discussed above. In Žižek’s view, individuals will react

with greater motivation when presented with violence that allows for a dramatic subjective

experience. For Žižek, one can almost not help but be moved by spectacular suffering.

Baudrillard counters, claiming that while individuals may gawk at subjective violence, their

attention is limited to the meaningless spectacle of the event, but normally fails to cross the

threshold of analysis and reaction.

With this in mind it is possible to reinterpret God’s response to Job, which we framed as

instances of Žižek’s “objective” transcendence, as presenting the inertial force of Baudrillard’s

spectacle. God intends with his poetic self-praise to awe Job into meaningless submission. In

effect, God does not attempt to counter Job’s claims of innocence on a logical or meaningful

level, but merely suggests that meaning, and perhaps justice itself becomes irrelevant when

confronted with God’s awesomeness. This interpretation gives greater animation to Job’s final

capitulation to God, “With my ear I have heard you in the past, but now I see you with my eye.

Therefore I relent and regret my actions, for I am nothing but dust and ashes.”33 In standard

Hebrew usage the sense of hearing is associated with logic, while vision is relegated to direct

experience.34 Thus, the ultimate motivation for Job’s submission to God was not rooted in a

logical understanding of his guilt, but in the inertial pull of the spectacle of God’s greatness.

33 Translation from Original Hebrew Text, Job 41:5-6 34 Famously the phrase “Hear O’ Israel the Lord is your God, the Lord is One,” (Deuteronomy 6:4) is interpreted as an expression of belief in monotheism, thus linking hearing with the concept of understanding.


August 28, 2010

20

III. Analysis and Application

As was alluded to above, none of the perspectives presented provide a total theory for

witnesses’ reactions to injustice. Within any given individual are a myriad of tendencies, biases,

and presuppositions that shape their perception of reality, as well as the logic brought to bear on

a given situation. If Žižek’s claim that individuals react less intensely to objective violence were

universally and absolutely true, he himself would be unable to break the veil of abstraction.

Rather, it is evident that he views this problem as one that can, and should be overcome through

thought and analysis. It is possible, and preferable for individuals to become aware of social

forces that effectuate objective violence in a society, and to react accordingly. Similarly, the

tendency of individuals to deny instances of injustice to preserve the belief that the world is just

is not entirely predictive. In the article cited itself, it is noted that sympathy for “Lisa” was

experienced even by people who believed strongly that the world is just, if they had a

contradictory impulse for activism.35 Likewise, we have already noted that System Justification

Theory merely claims to be one of many competing tendencies in the human psyche, and as such

is often overridden by self or in-group biases.

It is notable, however, that Baudrillard’s claim that the masses are inability to assimilate

meaning appears to be absolute. He presents the idea without any indication of variation, and is

unequivocal in our impotence to impart meaning and break the spell of spectacle. This position is

somewhat perplexing, as one can fairly quickly conjure up recent examples of public information

campaigns that have created social change.36 It is possible that Baudrillard simply chose a more

rhetorically aggressive stance for the sake of strongly presenting his argument. However, there is

35 Lauren D. Appelbaum, et al., When Effort is Threatening at 391. 36 The public’s ever increasing concern for gay rights in America in the past decade immediately comes to mind.


August 28, 2010

21

a more convincing explanation as to why his position stands in its dogmatism. Baudrillard’s

perspective is unique among the four presented in that it does not exclusively address the mental

state of witnesses to injustice, but also considers concerned parties attempts to change the public

en-masse. He can grant that individuals vary in the degree to which meaning is sapped from

events through the seductive pull of spectacle, but nonetheless claims that attempts to reach the

public at large with the goal of injecting meaning and motivation are bound to fail.

With the understanding that our four perspectives merely present a piece of the puzzle of

witness indifference, we can now consider if a coherent explanation can be formulated for the

public’s indifference to instances of torture by the Chicago Police Department. We will discuss

each perspective in turn, and consider both, how convincing their explanations are, as well as

limitations as to what aspect of the problem they most effectively address.

A. Belief in a Just World in Contemporary Chicago, and Related Ideologies

First we will consider whether belief in just world prevents Chicago residents from

reacting appropriately to police torture. While this approach can explain indifference in a number

of social contexts, it seems somewhat inappropriate in a contemporary urban setting. Because of

the erosion of religious sentiment in modern urban culture, it seems rather unlikely that strong

belief that the world is just is widely held. Furthermore, even if one begins with such a belief, it

is difficult to imagine its survival when confronted with frequent instances of injustice through

increased education and the fluidity of information in the digital age.

One might expect to see belief in a just world to retain some force among religious

fundamentalist minorities within Chicago. It is apparent that within these communities well-

established facts, such as the age of the universe, evolution, and even the heliocentric structure of


August 28, 2010

22

our solar system, are often denied to protect religious dogma. It seems reasonable to assume that

such groups would be able to shield themselves from accounts of injustice to preserve their belief

in divine intervention, and, in turn, that the world is just. However, this is not born out in reality.

Growing up within Chicago’s ultra-orthodox Jewish community, I often encountered astounding

instances of ideology overriding individuals’ capacity to assess various issues. I found, however,

that few, if any individuals believed in constant divine intervention when pressed. Interestingly,

an eminent early 20th century Rabbi, the Chazon Ish, developed a theology of divine intervention

that strongly opposed the notion that individuals’ suffering in this world can only result from

sinful behavior.

It should be noted, however, that while belief in a just world effectuated by divine

intervention is in decline, secular versions of this belief might persist, though not in manner

relevant to police torture in Chicago. A common example of such a belief is that the distribution

of wealth in America is just due to the unquestionable wisdom of the free market economy. This

belief is far from universal, but is readily found in libertarian circles throughout America. One

can imagine that such individuals may be troubled by stories similar to that of “Lisa,” and choose

to distort their perceptions to preserve free market ideology. Nonetheless, there is no reason to

assume that belief in just economic distribution, would lead to indifference to police torture, as,

to the contrary, such individuals tend to distrust governmental authority and intervention.

B. System Justification Theory and Implications of Guilt

System Justification Theory provides a more convincing account for the public’s

indifference to police torture in Chicago. As was mentioned above, a central assertion of System

Justification Theory is that individuals will defer to authority in order to prevent feelings of guilt


August 28, 2010

23

stemming from implicit acquiescence to systemic abuses. There is little question that middle and

upper class residents of Chicagoland are somewhat implicated in police brutality. First, as little

influence as an individual has on police conduct, the fact remains that they act as the agents of

the citizenry, and their tax dollars fund police action. Similarly, in the 1990s there was a

palpable fear among Chicago’s privileged classes that gang violence would spread beyond the

boundaries of the urban ghetto to their own neighborhoods. The public pressure brought to bear

on the police to contain gang activity “at all costs” likely contributed to police abuses, and as

such, strongly implicates middle and upper class residents in police abuses. As a result of these

considerations, middle and upper class citizens of Chicago may defer to police judgment as a

means of escaping feelings of guilt related to police abuse.

Similarly, System Justification Theory can explain deference to policy authority among

members of the low-income African American community on the Southside. As was noted

above, not only are the victims of systemic violence able to overcome self and in-group biases in

favor of the status quo, they are, in fact, more likely to do so.

This approach can additionally explain individual officers’ indifference to or even

participation in coercing confessions. New members of the police department will quickly be

exposed to such incidents. With every abuse observed and ignored by a new officer, greater

culpability is implied. Over time, it will become easier for said officer to rationalize torture,

rather than accept partial responsibility for abuses perpetrated in his or her presence.

Furthermore, System Justification Theory may provide an explanation as why the

longstanding and widespread knowledge of police torture in Chicago did not motivate reaction.

One would assume that with greater awareness would come greater reaction. System

Justification Theory indicates that the opposite might be true. The greater an unjust practice is


August 28, 2010

24

rooted in the status quo, the more likely third-parties will feel unconsciously implicated in the

abuses. As such, residents of Chicago are presented with the choice of admitting guilt, or

denying the existence or injustice of police torture. System Justification Theory will claim that

indifference or denial will be the more likely choice for many individuals.

C. Subjective Dramatic Narrative of Victims’ Perspectives

Žižek’s claim that individuals are less likely to react to “objective violence” has already

been explored in relation to police torture in Chicago to some extent above. It was noted that,

although police torture in its immediacy can be framed as “subjective,” there might be

“objective” societal forces at play, which are not accounted for in the public’s reaction. Thus

limiting the efficacy of proposed solutions.

An additional implication of Žižek’s approach lies in the manner in which police abuses

are reported to the public. He would claim that the public is more likely to respond with empathy

for the victims of abuse, if instances are presented as individual dramatic narratives. In the

aforementioned editorial from Cornelia Grumman,37 individual victims and perpetrators are

named, however, her editorial contains little in the way of dramatic narrative. In order for the

public to fully empathize with the victims of police brutality, it may be necessary to report

instances in a manner in which the reader is forced into the first-person perspective of the victim.

Because of this dynamic the print news media may be less effective than film, or even

fictionalized accounts in eliciting public reaction.

D. The Dismantling of Media Hegemony

37 Cornelia Grumman, No More Excuses. Go to the Tape, Chicago Tribune, April 21, 2002.


August 28, 2010

25

Both aspects of Baudrillard’s approach, i.e. “spectacle” and resistance to the “hegemony

of meaning,” can be brought to bear on the situation of police torture in Chicago. As was

mentioned above, Baudrillard’s perspective contradicts that of Žižek in certain respects. While

Žižek would privilege dramatic narrative as a means of eliciting empathy from the public,

Baudrillard might consider such attempts questionable, in that they may constitute a type of

“spectacle,” and as such, refuse to allow for the infusion of meaning. For Baudrillard the very

qualities that make dramatic narrative appealing to the public render it useless in affecting

empathetic reaction. In attempting to determine which thinker’s account is more accurate, it will

be necessary to consider examples of dramatic narrative, and to test not only public interest in

the media’s consumption, but also whether the experience has a lasting effect on their

perceptions and assessments of a given situation. Extensive research, beyond the scope of this

paper is necessary for a full adjudication. However, my instinct is to favor Žižek’s account.

While public reaction to various injustices is far from ideal, one cannot help be notice increased

public outrage towards events that include subjective narrative. There is little doubt in my mind

that film, literature, and the arts in general have been invaluable in educating the public in a

myriad of social issues.

Because Baudrillard sees the mass media’s “hegemony of meaning” as a barrier

meaningful public reaction to information presented, it is possible that increased reporting by lay

individuals through the Internet will enhance public empathy for the victims of police torture. By

democratizing the interpretation of transpiring events, the public feels it has more of a hand in

shaping matters, and as a result will react with increased empathy and outrage. In the likely event

that police abuses continue in Chicago despite current efforts, it will be interesting to test this

hypothesis, assuming that blogs and lay investigative journalism become increasingly common.


August 28, 2010

26

IV. Conclusion

This paper has presented an interpretive approach to the Book of Job that places the locus

of interest in the inability of Job’s friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, to interpret Job’s

suffering in a manner that acknowledges his innocence. This perspective provided a basis to

explain instances of bystander indifference to manifest injustice, even for victims they would

normally be prone to empathize with. Four theoretical approaches to the problem were presented

and analyzed. Each approach was considered in the interpretation of the Book of Job, and

utilized to understand public indifference to the torture of suspects by the police force in

contemporary Chicago. It was shown that, while one approach did not provide a comprehensive

explanation of the situation, they each worked in tandem to explain various aspects of

indifference to police abuses. This paper focused primarily on the explanation why indifference

occurs, it is my hope that the theoretical approaches developed therein will be of use in the

practical matter of affecting increased empathy in the public’s encounters with injustice.

popular reactions to injustice in the book of job

Documents