DENOMINALIZING “EVIL”

In the last Meta Reflection I introduced the challenge of “evil” to Self-Actualization Psychology. “If human nature is basically where, what accounts for evil?” This was the very complaint that Rollo May and Abraham Maslow made about the shallowness of Esalen and the primary focus of the “new age” programs and thinking that came from the early human potential movement—it had no explanation for the presence of evil or what explanation it had was quite inadequate. It presented the positive side of human nature, but without any balance for the dark side.

Yet a complete psychology must account for the presence of “evil” in human existence and how good humans can sometimes create such hurt and destructiveness. To not understand the full range of potentials within humans—the creative and the destructive is to not fully understand man (and woman).

I noted in that Reflection also Maslow’s contribution of the Theory of the Thwarting. The thwarting of human needs explains most human “evil.” So much of what we experienced as “evil” that brings hurt, destructiveness, trauma, etc. is a human being feeling threat and attack and fighting back in whatever ways that person knows in defense. Behind the evils of fighting back is self-defense and the pursuit of life. That’s the positive intention.

And sometimes, when that thwarting is chronic or life-long, people then develop beliefs of hopeless that lead to destructiveness. People become self-destructive and destructive of everything good and honorable and hopeful and that reflects the opposite of their experience. Perpetuated thwarting of basic needs distorts human nature as does beliefs that are morbidly destructive of others like any belief in the superiority of one human family over another.

The fact is, if we start counting up all of the different sources of evil in human life, almost all of it comes from us humans—we create the evil and we engage in the destructiveness. And why? Why do we do this?

We do so out of ignorance and especially ignorance of systems. This shows up in short-term thinking and responding so that we sell ourselves and others short. It shows up in unintended consequences as we just didn’t think about things and use our intelligence. It shows up in just plain stupidity—failing to use what intelligence we do have. It shows up in philosophies of selfishness that sells long-term values and larger context values for the short-term. It shows up in erroneous ideas and beliefs (like believing that the world is a jungle; that human nature is depraved, that people are determined and without choice or power). It shows up as depersonalization as beliefs and practices make some people as second-class or disenfrancise them so that we do not see them human beings. It shows up as such cultures as the culture of violence, the culture of hate.

Yet in writing to this point, I have been accepting the nominalization of the term “evil.” Yet can you put “evil” in a wheelbarrow? Or in a chair? Nor can you put “good” on the table and measure it or smell it—they are not empirical. Good and evil are not things, they are not nouns—not “persons, places, or things.” They are value terms, evaluations. The process within these terms is that some person or group of persons has made an evaluation according to some standard that something is good for something or evil to something. But what?

Using the terminology of good and bad, when Jesus spoke about bearing “good” fruit, he contrasted that to “evil” fruit. That is, fruit that’s no good. Fruit that’s gone bad—that is, fruit that’s rotten and unfit for consumption. Using the standard of what food fits for digestion and health and what does not fit, but creates illness, fruit can be “good” or “bad.”

If good and bad are relative terms of evaluation according to some standard, then what is “good” or “bad” (evil) for human life, relationships, health, growth, development, cooperation, progress, etc.? What brings out our best? What enables groups and communities and nations to collaboration, be respectful, support each other, honor differences, and facilitate the full self- actualization of all people? Whatever does is “good.” Whatever does not must be “bad” and “evil” for these outcomes.

In this area, we call “evil” in human nature that which creates illness, mental and emotional illness, pathology and meta-pathology. These are the things that diminish people, undermine peace of mind, learning, developing, relating, supporting, etc.

So as we say about meaning, so we can say about any particular meaning that we have created. Nothing is good or evil; good and evil does not exist “out there,” but these evaluative meanings are what we create in our minds about things.

And in doing this, we thereby create the meta-frame categories that we call morality and ethics. These are our beliefs and understandings about what’s good or evil as we relate to each other then create the quality of our specific cultures. And of course, some sets of values work better than others as they facilitate the creation of good societies where all people are considered valuable and equal, where we respect persons and property, where we grant freedoms for responsible speech and action, and so on.

May you discern “good and evil” in a way that unleashes your highest values and best visions!