Once We Were Brothers

The term “banality of evil” comes from political theorist Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, a report on Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Israel. Although the phrase is not stated explicitly in Once We Were Brothers, the fundamental idea of evil’s banality is strongly expressed through the character of Otto Piatek. Contrary to the beliefs of many, Arendt argues that Eichmann and most Nazis were neither psychopathic nor pathologically antisocial, despite what their crimes suggest. To justify this claim, Arendt cites the work of six psychologists who examined Eichmann and found no evidence of mental illness, not even personality disorder. Furthermore, she writes that Eichmann showed “no case of insane hatred toward Jews, of fanatical anti-Semitism of any kind. He personally never had anything whatever against Jews.” (Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking Press. 1963.)

To explain why a man of Eichmann’s ordinary psychological profile could be responsible for organizing the deaths of millions of Jews, Arendt argues that it is a consequence of groupthink, a desire for belonging, and a mindless sense of civic duty to the laws of the land, no matter how twisted those laws became. This strongly echoes Otto’s demeanor and attitude toward his Nazi duties. While Otto may suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, he is not a psychopath or an anti-Semite, at least not at the beginning of the narrative. This is shown most clearly when he saves Beka from anti-Semitic street gangs. As Otto falls deeper and deeper under the Nazis’ spell, he never interrogates or even considers Nazism from an ideological perspective. Rather, he enjoys the sense of belonging and the privileges that come with being in the Nazi in-crowd, such as the late-night carousing and the beautiful women who throw themselves at him. Finally, he justifies any action, no matter how atrocious, on an unthinking devotion to Reich law. When Ben asks for his family’s money, Otto says, “Can’t do it, Ben. It’s against the law for you to have it. If they change the law, then I’ll give it to you” (204).

Arendt suggests that men like Eichmann—and by extension, Otto—were the norm in the Nazi regime. “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted or sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal.” (Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking Press. 1963.) Otto’s relative normalcy thus serves as a warning to people who believe nothing like the Holocaust could ever happen in their country.

If there’s one theme connecting the 2004 timeline and the Holocaust-era timeline, it’s the idea of careerism versus justice. As noted above, Otto’s embrace of furthering his Nazi career blinds him to the atrocities in which he is complicit, as well as those he commits himself. When defending his actions, Otto cites his not only own survival and self-preservation but also his career. When Beka is kidnapped, he tells Ben, “I’ve worked too hard to earn my rank and position. When they find out I loaned you a uniform, my career’ll be finished. And that’s the least of what might happen to me” (175). That Otto is so preoccupied with his career when his surrogate sister’s life is in danger is incredibly telling of his character.

Meanwhile, in the 2004 timeline Catherine too questions the extent to which she’s willing to jeopardize her career in the pursuit of justice. At the beginning of the novel, she has little appetite for Ben’s case, suggesting he seek out a group of idealistic youngsters at a law clinic. She tells Liam, “Kids have no fear. I have a career” (32). But as the emotional truth of Ben’s harrowing story continues to resonate with her, Catherine’s doubts fade. Her commitment to Ben’s quest for justice is tested by her boss Jenkins and Elliot’s lead attorney Jeffers, both of whom threaten to ruin Catherine’s career if she does not drop the case. When Jenkins wonders what she’s fighting for, Catherine replies, “Mr. Jenkins, I’m ashamed of you. For what? For justice, that’s what! I’m not abandoning the case. I’ll work the file out of my house if I have to. Fire me, if you want to. For now, I’m on leave” (200). While there are demonstrably fewer risks to taking a moral stand in 21st-century America than in Nazi-occupied Europe, a clear distinction is made between Catherine’s willingness to abandon her career in the name of justice and Otto’s refusal to do the same.