I hope most of you read my last post “My Association with the Gambino Crime Family”.[1]
When I grew up in Brooklyn, my brother’s best friend until they were ten years old was Dominick Montiglio whom we recently found grew up to be a hitman for the Gambino crime family. We were shocked that such an apparently normal child became so corrupted. The post tried to briefly explain the reasons why.
In this post I wish to expound on one of those reasons that I didn’t have time to elaborately discuss the last time, and I will call it “the banality of evil.” I will then discuss its practical application to some of the behavioral problems that plague religious institutions.
The term “the banality of evil” was first coined by Hannah Arendt in her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). She was a political philosopher who was hired by The New Yorker magazine to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat heavily involved in organizing the deportation of Jews during the Holocaust. She listened to his testimony and cross examination. She was surprised by what she saw.
Arendt saw that Eichmann appeared less like a monster and more like a conformist following rules and pursuing career advancement. It should be by no means understood that she meant the Holocaust was ordinary or insignificant. Her arguments based on her perceptions, however, were quite unexpected, especially considering the extremely strong feelings about Eichmann at the time, and especially in the place he was being tried.
Her conclusion: Great evil can be committed by ordinary people because of thoughtlessness rather than deep hatred or sadism. They unfortunately just fall prey to bureaucratic systems that encourage people to stop thinking critically. This phenomenon is what Arendt called “the banality of evil.”
It is not difficult to see how religious institutions, which stress obedience to authority, are susceptible to this same dynamic. This is especially so when its authority is necessary to fulfill its role in maintaining the continuity of its teachings and culture into the future.
Certainly, obedience is a moral virtue. But if one is not vigilant, one’s ability to think critically and to make independent moral decisions can atrophy when faith and deference are strongly stressed.
For example, in the mid 70s there was an unfortunate case in ISKCON. There were legitimate concerns about a temple president who was a very prominent leader. He fell victim to financial irregularities and deviations from established standards. The deviations were so gross that it should have been obvious. Yet, many or even most devotees continued to accept his authority and supported his decisions. It wasn’t that these devotees were corrupt or weak in devotion. It is just that individuals often stop thinking critically when operating within powerful hierarchies.
It doesn’t have to be that way, however. There were devotees that refused to succumb to this dynamic and they exposed the corruption. Śrīla Prabhupāda praised them.[2]
Bureaucrats must especially be careful in a spiritual institution. Their pursuit of structure and procedure, in service of the organization’s mission — which is often spiritual and noble — can desensitize them to the human impact of policies and decisions. Worst of all, harm can be perpetrated upon their members when corporate procedures mindlessly transcend the ethical and spiritual principles that the mission was founded upon.
Obedience and faith are so important in the operation of an institution, but also in the cultivation of spiritual life. Faith is the precursor of knowledge and surrender to guru is foundational in spiritual life. How in such a milieu can one avoid “the banality of evil” especially in the modern age where too often spiritual leaders are plagued with weakness and even corruption?
While faith is essential in spiritual life, in the name of obedience one should not overlook that the śāstra equally declares that a devotee must be thoughtful. [3] In other words, one’s doubts must be respectfully raised and satisfied, especially when one’s conscience is challenged.
An institution must never discourage respectful dissent, or it will pressure members into suppressing ethical concerns.
I somehow recently learned about the life of crime led by my elder brother’s childhood friend Dominick. There was little indication when we knew him that he would turn out to be a hitman for the Mafia. Hannah Arendt’s concept of “the banality of evil” explains a lot. It also explains a lot of unhealthy situations within religious institutions and leaves us with an important message. Religious societies must be vigilant to educate their members to think critically and exercise moral judgment.
[1] https://wavesofdevotion.com/2026/06/22/what-i-learned-from-my-association-with-the-gambino-crime-family/
[2] https://prabhupadabooks.com/letters/bombay/november/28/1974/gopala_krsna
[3] https://wavesofdevotion.com/2018/07/16/the-marriage-of-faith-and-doubt/