Competing Goals, Organizational Pressure, and Ideology

• In Event: 252 - Section on Comparative-Historical Sociology Paper Session. Can Comparative Historical Sociology Save the World? (3) Genocide

Abstract

The Nazi concentration camps originated as highly bureaucratic organizations, and yet, by the end of the war, many camps had become chaotic. How did this happen? What led committed bureaucratics to shirk official directives? Drawing on data collected from the Nuremberg trials, prisoner testimonies, historical interviews with perpetrators, and secondary materials on the development and structure of the camps, I demonstrate that the camps were a system of control constructed to terrorize political prisoners through a set of clearly defined draconian rules and punishments. Yet, as the war progressed, guard behavior decoupled from the formal structure of the camp. I explore how broad institutional changes (including the introduction of competing economic and ideological goals), shifting organizational conditions (particularly the rapidly expanding size of the camps), and ideological beliefs (including a racial-ethnic hierarchy that encouraged dehumanization and division) coalesced to decouple behavior from organizational rules. These conditions created an ambiguous and often chaotic environment for prisoners, and limited the Nazi’s ability to extract labor from the camps effectively. I conclude by discussing how these findings influence our understanding of power, decoupling, and how organizations negotiate shifting environmental and demographic conditions.

Author

• Thomas V. Maher, The Ohio State University