Erased
Patriarchy, Moral Injury, & the Dehumanization of the “Other”
From a therapeutic lens, the behavior of the men in the recent conclusion of the Pelicot case or the ongoing saga of the Epstein files isn’t just a “lapse” in judgment; it reflects a sophisticated set of psychological defense strategies. These men manage to commit sexual offenses while often maintaining the self-image of a “good guy,” a “provider,” or an “ordinary man.” None of them saw her as a full human being. Psychologists and organizational researchers describe this underlying pattern in different ways. Some call it moral disengagement, others the normalization of deviance—a concept also applied to aviation safety, clinical practice in medicine, and the public’s deviance from COVID-19 health measures—though my focus here is on the psychological defenses.
Moral Disengagement
In psychology, Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement (essentially switching off your conscience) explains how individuals convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply to them in a particular context. In patriarchal systems, this is achieved through several maneuvers:
Euphemistic Labeling: Describing the sharing of a woman’s body as “generosity,” “bonding,” or “locker room talk.” By renaming the harm, the moral weight is lifted.
Displacement of Responsibility: Participants in group abuse often feel that because “everyone is doing it” or because the “husband” or “alpha” sanctioned the act, they are merely followers rather than perpetrators.
Dehumanization: This is the most critical stage. As Kate Manne notes in The Prescience of Epstein, the woman is viewed as “fungible capital.” Once a human being is reduced or marginalized to a “thing” or a “service,” the brain’s empathy circuits—specifically the medial prefrontal cortex—can effectively “shut off.”
