Administrative evil and moral disengagement: The case of torture in apartheid‐era South Africa.
Saved in:
| Title: | Administrative evil and moral disengagement: The case of torture in apartheid‐era South Africa. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Einolf, Christopher J.1 (AUTHOR) ceinolf@niu.edu |
| Source: | Public Administration Review. May/Jun2025, Vol. 85 Issue 3, p641-651. 11p. |
| Subject Terms: | Torture, Moral disengagement, Social injustice, Responsibility, Apartheid, Behavioral ethics, Truth commissions |
| Geographic Terms: | South Africa |
| Company/Entity: | South Africa. Truth & Reconciliation Commission |
| Abstract: | Understanding how administrators can commit unethical acts is an important goal of public administration research. This article tests whether moral inversion, taken from Balfour, Adams, and Nickels' theory of administrative evil, can help explain torture, and also proposes and tests Bandura's theory of moral disengagement. It analyzes testimony from perpetrators of torture who testified before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1996–2000. The results support moral inversion, as perpetrators stated that they believed their actions were morally justified. The results also support displacement of responsibility, as perpetrators shifted responsibility away from themselves and toward actors above or below them in the chain of command. However, the analysis does not support the theory of diffusion of responsibility, as perpetrators did not take the silence of officials outside of their chain of command as approval, but instead anticipated their disapproval and tried to conceal their actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Public Administration Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Understanding how administrators can commit unethical acts is an important goal of public administration research. This article tests whether moral inversion, taken from Balfour, Adams, and Nickels' theory of administrative evil, can help explain torture, and also proposes and tests Bandura's theory of moral disengagement. It analyzes testimony from perpetrators of torture who testified before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1996–2000. The results support moral inversion, as perpetrators stated that they believed their actions were morally justified. The results also support displacement of responsibility, as perpetrators shifted responsibility away from themselves and toward actors above or below them in the chain of command. However, the analysis does not support the theory of diffusion of responsibility, as perpetrators did not take the silence of officials outside of their chain of command as approval, but instead anticipated their disapproval and tried to conceal their actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00333352 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/puar.13875 |
