‘Of Folly’ by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45)

Thanks to my friend John F for this excellent piece from Dietrich Bonhoeffer: 
Folly is a more dangerous enemy to the good than evil. You can protest against evil, you can unmask it or prevent it by force. Evil always contains the seeds of its own destruction, for it always makes men uncomfortable, if nothing worse. There is no defense against folly. Neither protests nor force are of any avail against it, and it is never amenable to reason. If facts contradict personal prejudices, there is no need to believe them, and if they are undeniable, they can simply be pushed aside as exceptions. Thus the fool, as compared with the scoundrel, is invariably self-complacent. And he can easily become dangerous, for it does not take much to make him aggressive. Hence folly requires much more cautious handling than evil. We shall never again try to reason with the fool, for it is both useless and dangerous.

To deal adequately with folly it is essential to recognize it for what it is. This much is certain, it is a moral rather than an intellectual defect. There are men of great intellect who are fools, and men of low intellect who are anything but fools, a discovery we make to our surprise as a result of particular circumstances. The impression we derive is that folly is acquired rather than congenital; it is acquired in certain circumstances where men make fools of themselves or allow others to make fools of them. We observe further that folly is less common in the unsociable or the solitary than in individuals or groups who are inclined or condemned to sociability. From this it would appear that folly is a sociological problem rather than one of psychology. It is a special form of the  operation of historical circumstances upon men, a psychological by-product of definite external factors. On closer inspection it would seem that any violent revolution, whether political or religious, produces an outburst of folly in a large part of mankind. Indeed, it would seem to be almost a law of psychology and sociology. The power of one needs the folly of the other. It is not that certain aptitudes of men, intellectual aptitudes for instance, become stunted or destroyed. Rather, the upsurge of power is so terrific that it deprives men of an independent judgement, and they give up trying–more or less
unconsciously–to assess the new state of affairs for themselves. The fool can often be stubborn, but this must not mislead us into thinking he is independent. One feels somehow, especially in conversation with him, that it is impossible to talk to the man himself, to talk to him personally. Instead, one is confronted with a series of slogans watchwords, and the like, which have acquired power over him. He is under a curse, he is blinded, his very humanity is being prostituted and exploited. Once he has surrendered his will and become a mere tool, there are no lengths of evil to which the fool will not go, yet all the time he is unable to see that it is evil. Here lies the danger of a diabolical exploitation of humanity, which can do irreparable damage to the human character.

But it is just at this point that we realize that the fool cannot be saved by education. What he needs is redemption. There is nothing else for it. Until then it is no earthly good trying to convince him by rational argument. In this state of affairs we can well understand why it is no use trying to find out what ‘the people’ really think, and why this question is also so superfluous for the man who thinks and acts responsibly. As the Bible says, ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. In other words, the only cure for folly is spiritual redemption, for that alone can enable a man to live as a responsible person in the sight of God. But there is a grain of consolation in these reflections on human folly. There is no reason for us to think that the majority of men are fools under all circumstances. What matters in the long run is whether our rulers hope to gain more from the folly of men, or from their independence of judgement and their shrewdness of mind.

Clearly the Nazis didn’t like his thought as he was one of the last people they murdered just before their collapse.


About creativeconflictwisdom

I spent 32 years in a Fortune Five company working on conflict: organizational, labor relations and senior management. I have consulted in a dozen different business sectors and the US Military. I work with a local environmental non profit. I have written a book on the neuroscience of conflict, and its implications for conflict handling called Creative Conflict Wisdom (forthcoming).
This entry was posted in Conflict Processes, Religious Conflict, US Political Conflict, Ways to handle conflict and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to ‘Of Folly’ by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-45)

  1. Dayne Burns says:

    Which group, the Left or the Right, won’t conduct a civil debate and confronts publicly those they disagree with calling them “Narrow Minded, Intolerant, Deplorable, Sexist, Racist, Nazis, White Supremacist, Misogynist, Bigot”? I believe these are the fools Bonhoeffer is referring to in his Letter on New Years Day 1943.

    • @Dayne Burns. An interesting question. I didn’t know there was a group “the Left” or “the Right” so that makes it a bit harder for me to respond. I do argue with people to the Left of me and to the Right of me I suppose, and to the Center of me too; but they don’t seem to constitute a group. More extremely diverse clusters hardly warranting the term group.

      Some of these groups are uncivil and some civil. I have experienced no correlation between civility and position on the political spectrum. Narrow minded, intolerant are common terms. And Racist is used by the Right frequently for what they regard as anti White . Nazi is replaced by Communist in the incivility of the Right isn’t it? Mainly the uncivil have in common that they are totally convinced they are right, without error. I have negotiated with Free Market Fundamentalists, Neo-Nazis, Protestant and Catholic para militaries in Northern Ireland and Trotskyites and orthodox Communists and self righteous certainty is common among all of them.

      Now in dialogue I tend not to call people names. Don’t see the point. But I see those to the Left of me and those to the Right of me do call people names. Having managed riots, I have a thick skin I suppose and I don’t actually think calling someone “narrow minded, intolerant, deplorable, sexist, racist, Nazi, White Supremacist, Misogynist or Bigot” is uncivil if the label is then justified by evidence. There is nothing foolish about thinking that about some one if they indeed show traits consistent with any of those descriptions, any more than the equivalent Right descriptions. We are grown ups and not snowflakes upset by a bit of banter, aren’t we?

      Of course as a professional negotiator I never called anyone names if I wanted them to change their minds or get them to agree to something. It’s counter productive, pretty evidently and this blog is about conflict negotiation. Not scoring political points.

      Now of course as ever, I am very often mistaken about such matters. Make mistakes all the time. Happy to admit it too.

      How about you? Are you often mistaken? For instance about this: “Which group, the Left or the Right, won’t conduct a civil debate and confronts publicly those they disagree with calling them “Narrow Minded, Intolerant, Deplorable, Sexist, Racist, Nazis, White Supremacist, Misogynist, Bigot”? I believe these are the fools Bonhoeffer is referring to in his Letter on New Years Day 1943.”

      Might you be mistaken? I am not saying you are, just raising the possibility that you are mistaken, for you to consider in the light of the comments I made.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s