Seems there is no escaping the word “evil” this week. At my church on Sunday, the priest talked about the fact that we delude ourselves if we see evil as something entirely outside of ourselves. He mentioned all of the references to “evil” and “evil people” after the bombings in London, and noted one such article on the cover of the Columbus Dispatch.
He commented that on the same page, there was an article about “Coingate”, which no one ever seems to use the word “evil” to describe.
Good point, I thought. But I also thought, well, we usually reserve the word “evil” for acts like the one in London, or on 9/11, where people are killed. But when I got home and discussed it with Demetrius, he pointed out “Well, the ‘Coingate’ thing just isn’t killing people directly, but how many steps removed do you have to get before it’s not “evil”.
This diary is a reminder that, while it is not as easy to measure the cost in human lives in this case, human lives certainly could be endangered by the loss of medical coverage. Then today, I was horrified to read the recommended diary, Jeb’s Culture-of-Life doesn’t apply to poor li’l black girls. I don’t hesitate for a moment to use the word “evil” to describe what is being done to little Marissa. I do hesitate–or try to–to label Jeb himself as evil.
Why do I hesitate? In a more abstract sense, it goes back to the sermon I described above. I know that I am deluding myself if I imagine “evil” as something entirely outside of myself. And, not sure exactly what I’d call it–a spiritual practice, perhaps?–but I try to reserve the word “evil” for actions rather than people.
But there are more practical reasons for that as well. If I start describing specific human beings as “evil”, people’s “us vs. them” shields go up. I may then lose the opportunity to appeal to people on the basis of shared values. Like, oh, I don’t know, the value of being genuinely pro-life beyond the womb and before a persistent vegetative state sets in?
And then there is the issue of guilt versus shame. If you use guilt, telling someone that what they did was bad, and you are successful, they can be motivated to change their actions–or act differently in the future. If you use shame (bad self being the focus, rather than bad behavior), it is more likely to result in feelings of anger and destructive behavior…
Aaron Kipnis, Ph.D., author of “Angry Young Men: How Parents, Teachers and Counselors Can Help Bad Boys Become Good Men” and a clinical psychologist in private practice in Santa Barbara, Calif., agrees. He says that shame’s effects are more damaging than those of guilt.
“Guilt is positive,” he said. “It’s a response of psychologically healthy individuals who realize they have done something wrong. It helps them act more positively, more responsibly, often to correct what they’ve done.”
But shame is not productive, Kipnis says. “Shame tends to direct individuals into destructive behaviors. When we focus on what we did wrong, we can correct it; but when we’re convinced that we are wrong as a result of shame, our whole sense of self is eroded.”
That’s why guilt doesn’t produce the anger, rage or other irrational behaviors shame does, Kipnis adds. “Many violent behaviors lead back to a deep well of shame,” he said.
So, I have reasons for hesitating to call people evil. But I also feel it is important to name evil acts as such when we see them. In his July 4 essay, We Stand at the Crossroads of History, Anthony Wade offers some reflections on our American heritage:
It has been spoiled by people who wrap themselves in the flag but only represent greed. That tragic fact that blood has to be spilled to feed this greed is not relevant to them. They claim the mantle of Christianity, but do not represent the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace. They come under a banner that reads, “Culture of Life” while embracing the politics of death. We walk around every day trying to be politically correct. You don’t say the president lied; you say his statements were not borne out to be factually accurate. You don’t say that the president lied to go to war; you say the intelligence was poor. Everyone dances around the truth, afraid to confront the fact that the enemy is thyself. The Word of God says:
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, And prudent in their own sight!
It is time to call evil, evil.
Amen. And I only hope that the rest of what he says is more than wishful thinking…
After sleeping through a corporate-media-induced coma for five years, it appears that America is starting to awaken. Appalled at what they are seeing and hearing, they are starting to recognize what has happened to their country, their ideals, their children. The faux patriotism is being exposed for what it is, just a smokescreen.
Well, even if that is not a completely accurate statement of the current American consciousness at this point, I think it works well as an affirmation. Together, may we “make it so”.
I enjoyed your diary. I share your concern with labelling people.
I was thinking about the word evil and its nature in a recent diary. You may find it interesting (or not, heh).
Thanks–I’ve bookmarked it to read a little later. This is one of those diaries that started as a quick little thing and ended up taking up more of the evening than I had planned.
Thanks for the link. Interesting points in the diary and the thread as well.
If you visit this thread from last night and control-f for my name, I posted a whole bunch of interesting links about biblical interpretation, Jesus and Buddhism, and liberal values. “The Bible as a Liberal Library”, which you can find here
Renee*in*Ohio wrote on July 11, 2005 09:30 PM:
is especially good. It is excerpted from a sermon of an Ohio UU minister.
http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/006601.html
Personally – and maybe it’s just my hang-up – I try to avoid using the terms “good” and “evil” and instead frame the discussion in terms of “intelligent/stupid” or (best of all) “wise/foolish.” The reason I feel that way is due to the very point you bring up: it’s extremely difficult for most people to avoid going down the slippery slope from calling actions evil to calling people evil, and once you land at the latter place you’ve dehumanized the other person, allowing things like both 9/11 and Abu Ghraib to take place. And as you’ve noted, you’ve cut off discussion and seeing their point of view; cut off the hope of reforming them from doing such acts in the future.
I agree it’s soooo, soooo tempting to call this administration evil, at least their actions. But I try really hard to bite my tongue and fight the urge, as I don’t want to fall into the same practices that I criticize in the administration. (Awhile back catnip called me her “faux priest” in a similar discussion; she kept wanting to yell “idiot” at Bush on her TV – LOL).
I share your hope and prayer that the sleepers are starting to awaken, but I don’t want to scare them off just at the moment when we might enlighten some of them by waving the red shirt and hollering “evil!” We’re more likely to persuade the persuadable by calmly pointing out the foolishness of our opponent’s ways and ideas. Bush makes himself look like a bigger fool each time he talks about climate change, for example; who takes anything he says on the subject seriously? Who takes seriously anything Tom DeLay or Bill Frist says on anything? And for those that refuse to be persuaded, well, they’re the ones that are going to have a cold shock when things come crashing down around them; perhaps they’re more to be pitied than castigated.
As far as the administration, the oil companies, etc. I’m the first to admit that pity is more mercy than I can muster for them, but that’s my bad and I’ll own it – if I can have the quiet pleasure of seeing them frog-marched out…
You have taken on a HUGE subject! Good for you!
It seems to me we (humans) do that which seems “best.” The “best” action is determined by those we value, in the sense of those who will validate our choice and those who will benefit.
There are so many factors that come into play. For example, I have read about oil reaching $100 dollars a barrel. I consider the ramifications. Focusing on the coming winter, I consider how “best” to heat my home. I have a woodburning stove. I am in the process of accumulating wood.
Now, I know if I can heat my home with wood, I can turn down the thermostat and use less and pay less to the gas company. However, I know also that if everyone used wood heat, the forests would suffer. I also know wood smoke is a terrible pollutant. If more people do what I do, the environment will suffer. But this seems the “best” solution, though it has consequences I don’t intend.
Am I evil? Are my actions evil?
I wonder if the counter to our notion of “evil” is empathy. The larger our circle of people we care about, the greater the consideration for the consequences of our actions.
Empathy is the essence of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” How do we increase empathy and the ability to empathize?
Perhaps, through the increased communication we have today, we can reach a point of “Live as you would want others to live.” There are those seeking ways to live on this oh, so beautiful planet that won’t contribute to its destruction.
It is good to analyze, to wonder, to go to the macro level and to the micro level. And to do that which is in our power to change.
Thank you for this diary.