The Depravity of Violence: Responding to Radical Evil

Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic

Evil is much more than a theological or philosophical problem. It is primarily a psychological phenomenon and an existential fact of life. Nowhere is this demonstrated more clearly today than in the most recent series of videotaped executions by beheading and now, in the case of the coalition's captured Jordanian fighter pilot, being burned alive in a cage. These undeniably evil deeds have shocked the civilized world, not unlike the discovery and revelation of what went on during World War ll in the Nazi death camps. Such evil is stunning, repulsive and horrifying. Indeed, these are precisely the natural reactions the depraved perpetrators seek. It is their own perverse version of "shock and awe," aimed to induce terror and intimidation. The message these evil deeds send is unmistakable and terrifying: There is no limit to their depravity, no depth to which these extremist groups will not sink, no sense of human decency that would restrain them in the pursuit of their ungodly goals.

Now we have once again been confronted with the human face of evil. What shall we do? What is the appropriate response to this sort of evil? Is it the talionic "eye for an eye," as the grieving and enraged nation of Jordan appears to favor? Or does evil always beget more evil? More killing. More war. More cruelty. More suffering. Shall we instead deliberately "turn the other cheek," as Jesus of Nazareth recommended? Meet evil with love, compassion and passivity? Or perhaps it's best to turn a blind eye toward evil, denying its reality altogether, not unlike the ostrich burying its head in the sand. Or simply succumb to it, and, as in some cases, choose to identify with and worship it.

In a secular society such as ours in the West, we have tended traditionally to avoid biblical characterizations such as "sin," "wickedness," "iniquity" and "evil." Nonetheless, as Jungian analyst Liliane Frey-Rohn writes, "Evil is a phenomenon that exists and has always existed only in the human world. Animals know nothing of it. but there is no form of religion, of ethics, or of community life in which it is not important. What is more, we need to discriminate between evil and good in our daily life with others, and as psychologists in our professional work. And yet it is difficult to give a precise definition of what we mean psychologically by these terms."

In their 1971 text, Sanctions for Evil, social psychologists Nevitt Sanford and Craig Comstock cogently justified resurrecting the use of the term "evil" in psychology, stating "In using the word evil, we mean not that an act or pattern of life is necessarily a sin or a crime according to some law, but rather that it leads to damage or pain suffered by people, to social destructiveness of a degree so serious as to call for the use of an ancient, heavily freighted term." In my own 1996 book, Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic, I defined human evil as "those attitudes and behaviors that promote excessive interpersonal aggression, cruelty, hostility, disregard for the integrity of others, ...and human misery in general." Such human evil can be perpetrated by a single individual (personal evil) or by a group, a country or an entire culture (collective evil).

It is admittedly tempting to dismiss the reality of evil entirely, due to to its inherent conceptual subjectivity and relativity. To cite that wondrous psychologist William Shakespeare on this subject, "For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." This time-honored recognition of the relativity of good and evil, and its basis in egoistic evaluations and judgments of right and wrong, positive and negative, also has a history in Asian religion and Oriental philosophy. But as C.G. Jung said of this kind of cognitive approach to the problem, the fact that the notions of "good" and "evil" are limited inventions of the human mind (ego consciousness), convenient categories into which we try to neatly sort the stuff of life, does not diminish the vital importance of properly discerning between them. To cite Justin Martyr, "The worst evil of all is to say that neither good nor evil is anything in itself, but that they are only matters of human opinion." Or as philosopher Paul Carus puts it, " Evil and good may be relative, but relativity does not imply non-existence. Relations are facts too."

The conundrum of human evil has preoccupied the minds of some of our greatest psychologists, including Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Erich Fromm, Bruno Bettelheim, Viktor Frankl, Karl Menninger, Rollo May, Robert Lifton, M. Scott Peck, and many others. Today the problem of evil is being tackled by the field of forensic psychology and psychiatry. (See my prior post.) For example, forensic psychiatrist Michael Welner is currently in the process of developing and validating a definitive measurement of human evil which he calls the Depravity Scale. (To participate in the creation of this scale, click here.) This scale seeks to standardize and quantify the degree of depravity in evil deeds of violent criminal offenders by considering their intent, actions and behavior. For instance, intent would take into consideration factors such as the deliberate disfigurement of victims, prolongation of suffering, targeting of the helpless, and maximization of casualties. How would the evil deeds of ISIS, for instance, or Al-Qaeda or Boko Haram, rate on Dr. Welner's Depravity Scale? As with the acts of the most depraved serial killers and psychopaths, it seems certain that the evil deeds of these extremist groups would fall into the most extreme ranges of human depravity.

Whence comes evil? To what extent are we witting or unwitting participants in evil? What is the psychological process by which we each participate in evil? And what can be done—if anything—to deter this destructive process and, to some degree, decrease personal and collective evil? Finally, how can we defeat evil when irrefutably faced with it? These are the most challenging questions psychology faces, today and in the immediate future. First, it is imperative that we better understand the psychology of evil. (See my prior posts.) For we must take some stand toward the evil of ISIS, both personally and collectively. Ignoring it is not an option. Nor is optimistically hoping it will just go away on its own. Nor is negotiating with or minimizing such madness. Unfortunately, sometimes fire must be fought with fire. And violence with violence, though this is always a last resort. What distinguishes one form of violence from another has to do in part with intention. Violence intended to stop evil and ignorance, defend freedom and human rights, tempered by compassion, mercy and respect, differs from depraved violence. The violent actions may be similar, though the depths of depravity different. In the end, it may be that the only way to finally stop the evil embodied by ISIS is via the brutality of violence. By being even more violent and forceful than they are. Before their destructiveness becomes catastrophically irreversible. But, hopefully, never violence as depraved, bloodthirsty, atrocious, sadistic or evil as that of the enemy. Not vengeful violence, but firm, purposeful, consistent, constructive violence commensurate to the terrible task at hand. Otherwise, we unleash the shadowy evil in ourselves, becoming as depraved as the violent enemy we battle.

Image: Used with Permission