Paul Grüninger’s Proximity And Inherent Altruism Saved The Lives Of Countless Jews

Impactful decisions that saved the lives of countless Jews were made consciously and deliberately by a Swiss Police Captain, Paul Grüninger, in the years leading up to the Holocaust. Without nearness to the consequences of his actions and feeling the weight of the responsibility he had as fellow man, Grüninger could not have achieved this significant feat. Due to factors such as proximity and inherent altruism, Paul Grüninger rescued without reward and thus deserved to be the voice of the first chapter of Eyal Press’ Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times.

The closer in proximity one is, the harder pressed they will be to defy cruelty. One often cannot witness the agony of another without stepping in to challenge the perpetrator, especially as the victim becomes closer to the subject in space. In Milgram’s 1974 research book, Obedience to Authority several situations varying the proximity of the victim to the subject were monitored and recorded. The findings were as follows. “The results… revealed that obedience was significantly reduced as the victim was rendered more immediate to the subject”. This discovery becomes evident in several instances where proximity is altered, with the first being voice feedback, then proximity a few feet from, and the last, touch-proximity. In the first situation, where one did not have to view the victim, obedience was high, with 62. 5% of witnesses-becoming-perpetrators giving the maximum shock of 450 volts, a dangerous level. In the next, where “the victim was placed in the same room as the subject, a few feet from him. Thus he was visible as well as audible, and voice cues were provided”. With this combination of the previous situation’s voice cues and an added visual aid, a much lower percent of people dared to give the final shock with only 40% doing so.

Additionally, in the final scenario, where “the victim received a shock only when his hand rested on a shock plate”, the victim would, at the interval of 150 volts, refuse to continue. In order for the experiment to go on, the subject, the person involved in creating the shock, would be forced to hold the victim’s hand to the plate. With these parameters, “obedience in this condition required that the subject have physical contact with the victim in order to give him punishment”. At this stage, only 30% complied to the maximum voltage, 12 people. Why would these differing conditions cause such a drop in obedience in the witnesses-turned-perpetrators? When this proximity increases, several possible issues occur in the mind of the subject, all creating such a discomfort to them that they feel they must act on behalf of another, the victim. The first such situation is one wherein which the victim can no longer deny the victim's pain. Milgram’s (1974) study found the following: In the Voice-Feedback conditions, the victim’s suffering possesses an abstract, remote quality for the subject. He is aware, but only in a conceptual sense, that his actions cause pain to another person… It is possible (in the later situations) that the visual cues associated with the victim's suffering trigger empathetic responses in the subject and give him a more complete grasp of the victim's experience”. This is an easy enough concept to grasp; without the demonizing of peoples that the U. S. army wars with, the shootings by their soldiers could not have risen to 90%. In fact, prior to modern warfare and the implementation of these strategies, “a study by a team of U. S. researchers found that no more than 15 to 20 percent of American infantry soldiers on the front lines actually shot at the enemy”.

Man inherently feels the weight of his own actions against others when he is forced to see the direct impact of his decisions and reconcile with himself the consequences thereof. Thus, it stands to reason that as proximity increased, so did man’s ability to realize the pain he was inflicting on another. Thus, Grüninger, who “saw what condition the people were in when they arrived and … knew all too well what would happen if he sent them back, ” realized he “‘could do nothing else’”. Grüninger then, put in a harrowing situation, was forced to decide what was more important, the laws that bind men and the stability we agree to as a society, or the significance of the lives of outsiders. This is a highly important decision many beautiful souls must make, and thus further allows Grüninger to exemplify one and be worthy of his place in Press’ book. Another reason in which obedience likely declined was that the subject became more aware of the victim and his need. The early conditions allow for “a narrowing of the cognitive field so that the victim is put out of mind. When the victim is close it is more difficult to exclude him from thought”. No denial can be evident when the victim is constantly in field with the subject, and the subject must take responsibility. A man in one of the non-visual experiments recounts “you really begin to forget that there’s a guy out there, even though you can hear him. For a long time I just concentrated on pressing the switches and reading the words”.

When one cannot see the victim of a situation, they are less aware of the victim’s need and personhood, and it is easy for them to put the victim out of mind. If the victim is not salient, responsibility can easily be avoided. Thus, when the victim is visualised and their need is clearly evident, responsibility cannot be transferred to the experiment’s conductor or the experiment itself. When one is forced to take responsibility, they realize their actions have both personal and foreign consequences. When one only hears the victim, they can say the experiment must go on, and push off blame towards the situation at hand and not their own hands making the decision. Another choice those without personal responsibility have is to blame the man conducting the experiment, as many subjects did. The visualization of the subject reiterates these effects, and the subject is forced to consciously choose his actions and mindfully evaluate his morals. Additionally, now that the proximity is increased, a unity between act and consequence is created. In early conditions, “it is more difficult for the subject to see a connection between his actions and their consequences for the victim. There is a physical separation of the act and its effects … they lack a compelling unity”.

Once this unity is achieved in the latter conditions, it becomes impossible to deny both the impact of one's actions and thus the responsibility one has for them: no one can take the blame but the subject when they choose to hold down the hand of the victim to the shock plate. Unity of action and effect is pivotal to the awakening of the subject to his need for conscious choice. Grüninger was unable to deny the unity of his actions and their actions, for as a border guard he saw firsthand the people in need and what denying them would cause. The fear of the Jew’s death had greater weight to him than the fear of his own job loss, and thus continues to prove Grüninger to be a beautiful soul. Continuing on with the notion of responsibility, its made clear in Milgram's experiments the importance of it, and the impact it has on the subject. In addition to the subject now able to see the victim in the later experiments, “the reverse is also true: the actions of the subject now come under scrutiny by the victim … His surveillance of the action directed against him may give rise to shame or guilt, which may then serve to curtail the action”. If man can, without even visualizing the victim, have a 30% defiance rate, how much more does a person with a visualization war now that he has to fight his own conscience in order to continue? Not only is he the aforementioned responsible, he is also very likely to be guilty and ashamed. Similar to how one can complain of a disliked boss behind their back, they are very unlikely to confront the person. Should they do so, it is probable they will fidget and blush in discomfort; no one enjoys defying the norm. In this case, the norm is to help another in need. The good samaritan is classic due to its contemporary applications throughout time: all men seek aid in their time of need, all men feel that should the problem arise, they will be the one who provides. Yet, somehow, without proximity, the humanity of the victim is denied and the humanity of the subject does not arise. These ideas put together and applied to Grüninger a man who “had no barriers” and allowed “refugees (to come) to him” create an understanding for how proximity affected Grüninger.

Due to his proximity, Grüninger saw the pain and need of the victims, and chose to hold no one responsible but himself, the police captain of the canton. In doing this, he followed the expectation of the experiment, but not that of his superiors, creating a tear in his believability as an officer of the law and his need to uphold safety for the sake of others. Defiance, even in this situation is emotionally straining and contrary to natural inclinations. Milgram (1973), in a letter to Alan Elms, a former student at Yale, states the following: We do not observe compliance to authority merely because it is a transient cultural or historical phenomenon, but because it flows from the logical necessities of social organization. If we are to have social life in any organized form — that is to say if we are to have society — then we must have members of society amenable to organizational imperatives. Following this concept, any man who seeks reason and lawfulness will ultimately find a great difficulty in defiance. With his knowledge of society and its functions contrary to his newfound issue, he must decide: to maintain the status quo or deny it in the name of coming to another’s aid. This transition can be harsh, but ultimately carries a greater reward. Grüninger realized this, and did not allow his expectations for how a society should run overrule the great emotional and interrelationship-based reward that would ensue upon his doing what he deemed right. This guilt, shame, and the seeking of change can become a catalyst for altering the balance of the situation. Now that the victim is now humanized, his need and pain evident to the subject, and the subject’s responsibility is accounted for, two final things become clear: whether the subject will cease causing the pain that creates the situation, or whether personal beliefs acquired prior to the shocking will prevent him from stopping his behavior. If one has been raised to think a certain way about a people, they often, when the time comes to choose, choose actions that result in the detriment of the people they were influenced against. If a rat has never been taught to fight with his litter mates, he will not: “‘By doing nothing under… circumstances (the animal) learns to do nothing … this principle has great importance in teaching an individual to be peaceful … he can learn not to fight simply by not fighting’”.

If this is true, so must be the reverse. If man is raised to hate a certain people based on certain requirements, he will likely do so, and with his animosity continue to create an environment where the victim stays a victim. Qualities invested into a man from birth are rarely abandoned, and if the victim is believed to be inferior, or the cause of some wrong in the world, he will oftentimes stay in the position he’s been forced into when the subject refuses to provide aid. Similarly, societal expectations and norms can cause a man to evaluate a situation differently. In an earlier study, “Milgram found the Norwegians to be more conforming than the French participants”. If local mindsets differ, so thus the evaluation of a situation by the subject in question. “Proximity can be easily overcome by indoctrination”. Grüninger had no such qualms. Unlike many antisemitics of his day, Grüninger actually spoke on behalf of the Jews at a meeting of the chiefs of police. Similar to how indoctrination often runs deep, so can peace and so did rescuing for Grüninger. In contrast, should he have no qualms, and he consciously choose what is right on behalf of the victim, he now has an accomplice. Putting the victim and subject together in the same room, done in the latter experiments, creates a situation where “it becomes easier to form an alliance with him against the experimenter”.

With this newfound support, the subject is empowered and has a greater confidence in his actions, knowing a majority of those involved are on his side, against that of the experimenter and eases the yoke of his defiance. Among all these situations, the question arises, what forms a hero out of a bystander? Fogelman (1994) considers: I wanted to explore what traits, if any, rescuers had in common. Were they adventurers with a penchant for living on the edge? Were they people who had an extraordinary capacity to tolerate risk? Were they social misfits indifferent to community pressure? Despite possible research in the direction of these findings, Grüninger met none of these criteria, a “normal man”, he never spoke out against his superiors except once at a conference in favor of asylum, and was well accepted by his community as a police chief and former local soccer player. One does not acquire these roles as a misfit, and Grüninger fit them quite well.

Grüninger’s choices cannot be attributed to his treatment by or political opinions of society, but rather, some innate altruism that caused him to rise above and make decisions to benefit those most in need. Similarly, “It does not matter how many people chore moral duty over the rationality of self-preservation -what does matter is that some did”. Despite the fact that no reason can quite be pinpointed, it is clear that Grüninger was, without need for validation or expectation by society, inherently altruistic and that what matters is not the numbers of such people, but rather the fact that they exist. Grüninger saw the full colour of his actions and the societal consequences they created when “went down alone, defended by nobody, the ripple effects of his ‘underhanded practices’ contained to himself and his family”. Unable to sway his fellow police captains, his superiors, or his government, Grüninger did what he did wholly for the sake of those in need and fell from his position fully with the weight of a traitor. Grüninger can be said to have no recognition or laurels until long after his death, and thus is a hero for deciding to do what his morals deemed right in the eye’s of himself, rather than his superiors despite the grave consequences that ensued due to his choice, making him a beautiful soul: worthy of Eyal Press’ chapter and much more. Asked if he would “act in the same way if the situation were the same?” he replied “Yes, of course”, proving him to be the honorable man the Jews he saved always knew he was, knowing full well the consequences the situation would have, and making a conscious decision to bear them anyway.

Altogether proximity holds great power over whether one will decide to uphold the powers set in place before him, or whether he will defy them in order to relieve the burden set upon a victim of a situation. Due to Grüninger’s proximity to the Jews involved in escaping an ever increasingly dangerous Germany, he made the call to defy what his superiors decreed and forced a rift in local expectations deep enough to save countless lives and ostracize himself until long past his death.