Analyzing Mass Participation in State Crime: Organic Disease or Social Conditioning?

This is a profound and challenging question that gets to the heart of one of the most difficult issues in psychology, sociology, and ethics. The framing—"the emergent movement to define every social disorder as a disease"—sets up a critical tension.

The core question is whether widespread participation in a state crime (like genocide, ethnic cleansing, or systemic persecution) should be understood as an organic problem (i.e., stemming from individual brain pathology, illness, or a "sickness") or as a socially conditioned one (i.e., a product of societal structures, propaganda, peer pressure, ideology, etc.).

The "Organic" or Disease Model Argument

This view, which you note is part of an "emergent movement," would pathologize such behavior.

Its Logic and Mechanisms

Proponents might argue that the ability to feel empathy, adhere to moral norms, and resist destructive commands is rooted in neurobiology. Widespread, systematic cruelty could therefore be seen as a manifestation of a collective pathology.

Potential mechanisms include:

"The Banality of Evil" as Cognitive Disorder: A modern "disease" model might reframe Hannah Arendt's concept not as a moral failing but as a pathological failure of critical thinking and empathy, perhaps linked to specific neurological traits.

Pathological Conformity: Extreme, uncritical conformity to an immoral authority could be classified not just as a psychological tendency but as a pathological one when it leads to atrocity.

Diagnostic Labels: One might point to concepts like "antisocial personality disorder" on a mass scale, or argue that fanatical ideology acts like a "mental parasite" that hijacks cognitive functions.

Problems with the "Organic" Model

Medicalizes Morality: It risks transforming profound moral and political choices into clinical symptoms, potentially absolving individuals of responsibility. ("I was sick, not evil.")

Removes Context: It ignores the powerful situational factors that social psychology has proven are paramount. Studies show that ordinary, "healthy" people can commit horrific acts under specific social pressures.

Political Danger: Labeling a political or ethnic group as "diseased" or "pathological" has historically been a precursor to persecution, not an explanation for it.

The "Socially Conditioned" Argument

This is the dominant view in social psychology and sociology. It argues that state crimes are made possible not by individual illness, but by specific social processes.

Its Logic and Key Mechanisms

Humans are fundamentally social creatures whose morality is highly malleable and context-dependent. Given the right conditions, most people can be led to participate in or condone actions they would never commit as isolated individuals.

Key mechanisms, as identified by scholars like Stanley Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, and Ervin Staub, include:

Ideology and Dehumanization: The target group is systematically portrayed as subhuman, an enemy, a virus, or a threat to the collective. This breaks down innate moral inhibitions against harming others.

Authority and Obedience: People are conditioned to obey authority figures. When the state legitimizes a crime, many people surrender their moral judgment to the chain of command.

Bureaucratization: The crime is broken down into small, administrative steps. No one feels personally responsible for the final outcome.

Conformity and Groupthink: The desire to fit in and not rock the boat is incredibly powerful. Dissent is silenced, and a false consensus is created.

Gradual Escalation: Crimes rarely start with mass murder. They begin with smaller steps, each of which desensitizes the population and makes the next step seem normal.

Problems with the "Socially Conditioned" Model

Can Seem Overly Deterministic: It can appear to excuse perpetrators by suggesting "anyone would have done it," which can be deeply unsatisfying to victims and societies seeking justice.

Doesn't Account for Resisters: It doesn't fully explain why some individuals, facing the exact same social pressures, refuse to participate and even become rescuers or whistleblowers.

Synthesis: A Diathesis-Stress Model

The most accurate answer is likely a synthesis, often called a diathesis-stress model in psychology.

Social Conditioning is the Primary Driver (The "Stress"): Mass participation in state crime is overwhelmingly a socially conditioned phenomenon. The specific historical, political, and social context creates the "stress" that makes such crimes possible. Without this specific social machinery, the crime would not occur.

Individual Predispositions are a Secondary Factor (The "Diathesis"): Within that oppressive social system, individual biological or psychological differences (the "diathesis") can influence where a person ends up on the spectrum. Some may be predisposed to become enthusiastic perpetrators, others reluctant participants, and a rare few courageous resisters.

Conclusion

To directly answer your question: Mass participation in a state crime is primarily and overwhelmingly a socially conditioned phenomenon.

While the "emergent movement to define every social disorder as a disease" might try to frame it as an organic illness, this is a dangerous and misleading oversimplification. It medicalizes what is, at its core, a political and moral catastrophe. The "disease" is not in the individual brains of the participants, but in the social body—the corrupted institutions, the toxic ideologies, and the manipulated group dynamics that override individual conscience.

Viewing it as socially conditioned does not absolve participants of guilt; rather, it places responsibility on the specific, identifiable processes that must be actively guarded against in any society to prevent such crimes from happening again.