Planet of the Ood and the Banality of Evil
The thing I really loved about this episode was the way that it addressed the banality of evil.
Not so much a review as a reflection on the way that Doctor Who treats notions of institutional evils. Spoilers, of course.
A bit of history, for those not in the know: the term "banal evil" was coined by Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who escaped from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and later became well known for her social theories, particularly as they pertained to the oppression of Jews and other minorities leading up to and during WWII. She developed her theory of banal evil when she was observing the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a man who was responsible for signing the death warrants of countless numbers of Jews and others. Arendt was struck by how normal Eichmann was: his motives were not discernably different from many other people trying to advance through the ranks of their job, he was not particularly vicious (no more than you or me), and if he'd been brought up somewhere else, he probably would have been able to get along as a fairly useful member of society. This lead Arendt to theorise that the worst evils of which humankind is capable are often perpetuated by those whose motives are completely banal. She speculated that the socio-cultural institutions in which individuals operated simply created circumstances in which it's easy to switch off from notions of right and wrong.
Doctor Who has dealt with themes of banal evil before. Most notably, in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, the Doctor refuses to accept "I was just doing my job" as an excuse for the atrocities perpetuated by the staff of the Game Station: this is an important point. Just because a person exists within an institution that enables banal evil, it does not mean that she or he is forced to switch off. In my opinion, Planet of the Ood takes it a step further: this episode presents us with a textbook case of banal evil; and it asks us to see ourselves in that textbook. We've got Solana, who is obviously just trying to maintain a good job, and so she believes the lies about making the Ood better. She may well believe it at first, but the crucial moment comes when the Doctor gives her the chance to work with him-- at this point, it's purely her choice, and she hides behind the institution that has allowed her to evade this choice up to that point.
Mr. Halpen is an even more poignant example: a classic Eichmann figure. Like Eichmann, Haplen feels distaste for the horrors perpetuated by his institution: Eichmann was sickened when he saw the mass graves outside the concentration camps just as Halpen was sickened by the Ood brain trapped in the circle; Eichmann personally never killed anyone, just as Halpen never had-- Halpen was uncomfortable pointing a gun at the Doctor and Donna, and he really was not looking forward to killing someone with his own hands, although he had ordered the deaths (appropriately, the gassings) of thousands of Ood. Both Eichmann and Halpen were capable of feeling affection for those they oppressed: Eichmann tried to defend himself by saying that he had allowed some Jews to escape for sentimental reasons, just as Halpen seemed to feel some genuine affection for Sigma, and let him go. These people aren't motivated by personal hatred-- they're just doing their morally reprehensible job.
All of this becomes even more interesting in relation to Donna's comment at the end: "Being with you, I can't tell what's right and what's wrong anymore." Superficially, this could seem to suggest that travelling with the Doctor is opening the way for Donna herself to immerse herself in banal evils. The Doctor's response, however, turns this on its head: "It's better that way, because people who think do turn out like Mr. Halpen." The Doctor's point is that if you think you know what's right and wrong, you become morally disengaged-- this allows you to blindly accept it when people tell you that it's okay to enslave groups of people (whether in our personal households or in sweatshops), or send them to their deaths, or to ignore the fact that other people are doing those things while you benefit. Ironically, having absolute notions of right and wrong allows people to switch off; while if we see right and wrong as difficult and complex questions with no definitive answers, that's when we have to keep questioning everything we do, that's when we really engage morally. There may never be a completely satisfactory answer, but at least we're not turning off.
And lastly, a few (mostly) unrelated points:
1. Did anyone else notice that when the Doctor and Donna first arrive on the sphere, it's snowing from a blue sky?
2. Did anyone else see parallels between what they were doing to the Ood and the process of intercission in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials-- basically removing the part of the self that enables emotions and identity-- whatever it is that we usually call a soul.
3. I loved the Ood songs. Can't wait for the soundtrack.
4. Donna is awesome.
5. Martha!
Not so much a review as a reflection on the way that Doctor Who treats notions of institutional evils. Spoilers, of course.
A bit of history, for those not in the know: the term "banal evil" was coined by Hannah Arendt, a Jewish woman who escaped from Nazi Germany in the 1930s, and later became well known for her social theories, particularly as they pertained to the oppression of Jews and other minorities leading up to and during WWII. She developed her theory of banal evil when she was observing the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a man who was responsible for signing the death warrants of countless numbers of Jews and others. Arendt was struck by how normal Eichmann was: his motives were not discernably different from many other people trying to advance through the ranks of their job, he was not particularly vicious (no more than you or me), and if he'd been brought up somewhere else, he probably would have been able to get along as a fairly useful member of society. This lead Arendt to theorise that the worst evils of which humankind is capable are often perpetuated by those whose motives are completely banal. She speculated that the socio-cultural institutions in which individuals operated simply created circumstances in which it's easy to switch off from notions of right and wrong.
Doctor Who has dealt with themes of banal evil before. Most notably, in Bad Wolf/The Parting of the Ways, the Doctor refuses to accept "I was just doing my job" as an excuse for the atrocities perpetuated by the staff of the Game Station: this is an important point. Just because a person exists within an institution that enables banal evil, it does not mean that she or he is forced to switch off. In my opinion, Planet of the Ood takes it a step further: this episode presents us with a textbook case of banal evil; and it asks us to see ourselves in that textbook. We've got Solana, who is obviously just trying to maintain a good job, and so she believes the lies about making the Ood better. She may well believe it at first, but the crucial moment comes when the Doctor gives her the chance to work with him-- at this point, it's purely her choice, and she hides behind the institution that has allowed her to evade this choice up to that point.
Mr. Halpen is an even more poignant example: a classic Eichmann figure. Like Eichmann, Haplen feels distaste for the horrors perpetuated by his institution: Eichmann was sickened when he saw the mass graves outside the concentration camps just as Halpen was sickened by the Ood brain trapped in the circle; Eichmann personally never killed anyone, just as Halpen never had-- Halpen was uncomfortable pointing a gun at the Doctor and Donna, and he really was not looking forward to killing someone with his own hands, although he had ordered the deaths (appropriately, the gassings) of thousands of Ood. Both Eichmann and Halpen were capable of feeling affection for those they oppressed: Eichmann tried to defend himself by saying that he had allowed some Jews to escape for sentimental reasons, just as Halpen seemed to feel some genuine affection for Sigma, and let him go. These people aren't motivated by personal hatred-- they're just doing their morally reprehensible job.
All of this becomes even more interesting in relation to Donna's comment at the end: "Being with you, I can't tell what's right and what's wrong anymore." Superficially, this could seem to suggest that travelling with the Doctor is opening the way for Donna herself to immerse herself in banal evils. The Doctor's response, however, turns this on its head: "It's better that way, because people who think do turn out like Mr. Halpen." The Doctor's point is that if you think you know what's right and wrong, you become morally disengaged-- this allows you to blindly accept it when people tell you that it's okay to enslave groups of people (whether in our personal households or in sweatshops), or send them to their deaths, or to ignore the fact that other people are doing those things while you benefit. Ironically, having absolute notions of right and wrong allows people to switch off; while if we see right and wrong as difficult and complex questions with no definitive answers, that's when we have to keep questioning everything we do, that's when we really engage morally. There may never be a completely satisfactory answer, but at least we're not turning off.
And lastly, a few (mostly) unrelated points:
1. Did anyone else notice that when the Doctor and Donna first arrive on the sphere, it's snowing from a blue sky?
2. Did anyone else see parallels between what they were doing to the Ood and the process of intercission in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials-- basically removing the part of the self that enables emotions and identity-- whatever it is that we usually call a soul.
3. I loved the Ood songs. Can't wait for the soundtrack.
4. Donna is awesome.
5. Martha!