The Banality of Power
How ordinary people sustain harmful systems
When people imagine systems of abuse or corruption, they tend to imagine villains.
Cruel leaders.
Malicious actors.
Individuals driven by obvious ambition or intent.
History certainly contains such figures.
But decades of psychological research point to a more uncomfortable truth:
Harmful systems rarely depend on villains alone.
They depend on ordinary people.
People who see themselves as decent.
People who believe they are simply doing their jobs.
People who assume responsibility lies somewhere else.
This is the banality of power.
Hannah Arendt’s Observation
The phrase “the banality of evil” entered public discourse through the work of political theorist Hannah Arendt, who reported on the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a bureaucrat responsible for organizing the logistics of Nazi deportations.
Arendt expected to encounter a monster.
Instead, she encountered a man who appeared disturbingly ordinary.
Eichmann did not describe himself as a fanatic or an architect of violence. He described himself as a functionary—someone who had followed orders and fulfilled administrative duties within a larger system.
Arendt’s argument was not that the crimes were banal. They were among the most horrific in human history.
Her observation was that the individuals carrying them out were not necessarily extraordinary.
They were participants.
Participants in a system that distributed responsibility so broadly that no single actor experienced themselves as fully accountable.
This insight unsettled many readers because it disrupted a comforting narrative:
That harm requires intention.
In reality, it often requires only participation.
“Power rarely sustains itself through cruelty alone. More often, it survives through routine.”
The Machinery of Institutions
Modern institutions are designed around specialization.
Responsibilities are divided. Tasks are segmented. Individuals manage narrow functions within larger systems.
This structure enables efficiency.
But it also creates distance.
When responsibility is fragmented, consequences become abstract.
One person processes documentation.
Another enforces compliance.
Another executes policy.
Each role appears neutral in isolation.
Together, they produce outcomes no single individual fully owns.
This is how systems scale.
It is also how responsibility dissolves.
The Psychology of Obedience
Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments demonstrated how readily individuals adapt to hierarchical structures.
Participants who believed they were administering electric shocks did not behave as sadists. Many were visibly uncomfortable—some distressed.
Yet many continued.
Why?
Because the structure of authority redefined responsibility.
Participants did not see themselves as responsible for the outcome. They saw themselves as instruments of a system directed by someone else.
Their role was execution.
The authority, they believed, held responsibility.
Milgram’s work revealed a critical shift:
When responsibility moves upward, moral resistance weakens.
The system absorbs accountability.
The individual performs the task.
The Comfort of Roles
Institutional roles do more than organize behavior.
They protect it.
When individuals operate within clearly defined responsibilities, decisions begin to feel procedural rather than moral.
The role becomes a buffer.
“I was following protocol.”
“This is how it’s done.”
“It wasn’t my decision.”
These statements do not always reflect indifference.
Often, they reflect psychological insulation.
The structure creates distance.
And distance makes participation easier.
The Rationalization of Participation
Participants in harmful systems rarely experience themselves as doing harm.
Instead, they construct narratives that allow their behavior to remain consistent with their identity.
Perhaps the system is necessary.
Perhaps leadership has information they do not.
Perhaps the situation is more complex than it appears.
These are not always conscious justifications.
They are cognitive adjustments.
Elliott Aronson’s work on cognitive dissonance helps explain why. When behavior conflicts with self-image, individuals experience discomfort.
To resolve it, they adjust interpretation.
The system becomes more reasonable.
The role becomes more justified.
Participation becomes acceptable.
When Responsibility Disappears
The most troubling feature of institutional systems is not that responsibility is absent.
It is that it is dispersed.
When many individuals contribute small actions, no one feels fully accountable for the outcome.
Each person carries a fraction.
No one carries the whole.
This diffusion allows harmful systems to persist—even when many participants feel unease.
Because unease, on its own, does not interrupt structure.
Participation continues.
“Ordinary participation
is the quiet engine
of powerful systems.”
The Quiet Power of Ordinary Behavior
The banality of power is not confined to historical extremes.
It appears in everyday institutional life.
Organizations that reward alignment over accuracy.
Bureaucracies that prioritize process over accountability.
Systems that discourage dissent in favor of stability.
In these environments, individuals often recognize that something is misaligned.
But recognition alone is not enough.
The cost of acting on that recognition can be high.
Careers, reputations, and relationships are often tied to compliance.
So participation continues.
Not because everyone agrees.
But because enough people do not intervene.
The Responsibility of the Individual
Recognizing the banality of power does not absolve individuals.
It clarifies them.
Systems shape behavior.
They do not eliminate agency.
At every level of participation, individuals retain the ability—however constrained—to question the structure around them.
To ask:
Does this role align with my values?
Does this system deserve my participation?
These questions are not comfortable.
But they are necessary.
Because systems do not correct themselves.
They are corrected when individuals choose to see them clearly.
The Quiet Decision
Harmful systems rarely depend on overt cruelty.
They depend on continuity.
On repeated, ordinary decisions to proceed.
Each decision may feel small.
But systems are built from accumulation.
Understanding the banality of power reveals something essential:
Responsibility does not disappear within systems.
It becomes easier not to notice.
And the integrity of any institution ultimately depends on how many individuals decide that noticing matters.
“Harm does not require intention. It often requires only participation.”
Series Note
This essay is part of the Coercive Control Series, which examines how authority operates within institutions, organizations, and social environments.
Drawing on research in social psychology, moral psychology, and the study of institutional power—including the work of Craig Haney, Elliott Aronson, Avril Thorne, Campbell Leaper, Ralph Quinn, and G. William Domhoff—the series explores how systems shape behavior long before individuals recognize their influence.
Understanding these dynamics allows individuals to see the structures guiding their decisions—and to begin questioning them.
Next in the Series
If harmful systems are sustained through ordinary participation, a deeper question follows:
How do those systems shape the way individuals think, perceive, and interpret reality itself?
Essay VIII — The Psychology of Control
How systems influence perception, belief, and identity. →
